Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Iraq

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Miss Emma Nicholson: We have started our debate, as we always do, with Prayers, and as I said the Lord's Prayer this morning, the words, "deliver us from evil" struck hard in my heart because it is an evil upon which I ask the House to concentrate.
May I match that Christian prayer with the cry that is on the lips of the marsh Arabs and which echoes Allah's words revealed in the Koran 1500 years ago:
He is Allah most gracious: we have believed in Him, and on Him we have put our trust, so soon will you know which of us it is that is in manifest error. Say, 'See you? If your stream be some morning lost … who can then supply you with clear flowing water?
The House has been kind to me in allowing me time for debate over the two years during which I have been working for the people of Iraq, and especially for the people of southern Iraq. It is their needs on which I ask the Minister to concentrate. I shall compare them a little with the needs of northern Iraq, which are large. Today I want to focus upon the forgotten people, the marsh Arabs, the Ma'dan, and the people who are sheltering in those marshes with them. In all, there are about 600,000 people.
The debate is timely, because it takes place in the wake of a special meeting that the Foreign Secretary and subsequently the Prime Minister held with the Iraqi National Congress. The Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who is here for the debate, was also present. I should like to put on the record the keynote points that the delegation representing Iraqis from the north, the centre and the south through membership of the new Iraqi National Congress, which is fully representative of all the opposition bodies, raised with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary on 30 March.
First, they called for a new United Nations Security Council resolution to enact resolution 688. Secondly, they asked for the full implementation of resolution 688, and they asked the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to concentrate on discussing methods of reversing the current repressive measures instituted by Saddam's regime.
Thirdly, they asked for the removal of the extensive and ecologically destructive activities of the regime in the marshes, such as on the dams and drainage channels. I shall return to that. Fourthly, they asked for the removal of the economic blockage against Iraqi Kurdistan in the north, especially the denial of petroleum products, without which people there cannot keep warm. They also asked for the cessation of arbitrary executions in Baghdad, the

release of all political prisoners and the return of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deportees to their homes all over Iraq.
Manifestly, these last two right and proper requests are beyond us in the House just now, but the extension of the no-fly zones to include all of Iraq is a possibility. More important would be the adoption by the Security Council of the recommendation of the special rapporteur on human rights in Iraq to place human rights monitors all over Iraq. In the wake of that, the delegation requested a security zone, a safe haven, in southern Iraq. Finally, they asked for a war crimes trial for Saddam Hussein himself.
I know of the sympathetic hearing and the deep understanding which the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Minister of State and Foreign Office officials extended to the Iraqi National Congress at the meeting. This morning gives me an opportunity to put on record in Hansard some of the reasons that lie behind the congress's requests. They are the sufferings of the people in the marshes; the destruction of a wonderful historic part of the world that can never be re-created; and the problems that face the United Nations in its legal tangle, which seemingly prohibits it from helping the Arabs who are locked into the marshes and facing destruction by Saddam Hussein's forces.
A little while ago, by courtesy of Iran, I and my colleagues in Tehran and in the south of Iran managed to arrange a 10-day visit by a very brave journalist from The Observer—its senior foreign reporter, Shyam Bhatia. His report was published in five pages of The Observerfive days ago. Last week, the paper allowed me to describe my thoughts in an article. The situation is truly desperate. Most days, I get information from the marshes by fax, and sometimes by telephone, too. The people there report that things are terrible.
The work that I have been carrying out has been to do with organising medical and food aid, so the medical needs of the area land on my desk each week. As I wrote in The Observeron Sunday, cholera has now started in the marshes—a terrible death, which we have not known in the west for many years. Hardly any food is available because of the blockade by Government forces. Skin and gut infections, diarrhoea, typhoid fever, food poisoning, eye diseases, conjunctivitis, gynaecological and pelvic inflammatory diseases, dental and gum diseases and sunstroke—all these are taking their toll. I have been in the marshes when the temperature exceeded 50 deg C, and there is no shelter, giving rise to sunstroke. All these diseases are widespread and largely untreated.
Polluted water is all there is to drink. Last autumn, it appeared that Saddam Hussein was poisoning the waters, but knowledgeable people, scientists, tell me that it is not necessary to poison the marsh waters. Just draining them is enough; the water level becomes so low that the salts and acids in the water become concentrated, and that poisons the people. There is nowhere to put sewage, human or animal, so everyone I know in the marhes has constant dysentery. Children cannot be immunised; there is no cold chain of refrigeration to get the vaccines in, so there are no vaccines in the marshes. Polio, measles, whooping cough, mumps and other childhood diseases are rampant. The children are stunted because breast milk is in short supply owing to severe maternal malnutrition. Without even the most primitive obstetric services, mothers just die in labour.
On top of all this, there is constant military bombardment. The famine has been caused not just by natural factors or a lack of water; we are talking about a planned destruction of a people and of their wonderful environment. Now that the marshes have dried out, it is easy to use incendiary bombs. In January, February and March, telegrams from the marshes to me described villages, people and animals being burnt to death. The rice farms that supplied the staple diet for the marsh Arabs have been burnt out. The fish have died—they used to provide protein—and the water buffalo have just fled because of the bombardments.
The marshes are losing water fast. I do not know whether the latest suggestion by two American senators would be useful—bombing the dams to release the Tigris and the Euphrates again.
We are talking about an historic area. The House Library contains a book called "Ancient Iraq", written by Charles Roux and first published in 1964. Updated in 1992, it has gone through four reprints. It reminds us of the history of this part of Iraq, going right back to the Sumerians 6,000 years ago. After them came the Akkadians, and the Assyrians, and so we can recall the waters of Babylon, beside which people sat down and wept. Echos of the Old Testament are to be heard throughout the history of the Iraqi marshes, that unique part of the world where the Tigris and Euphrates have provided the great flow of water which has given these people a way of life.
I know that the Ma'dan pre-date the Arab invasion of Iraq. They are a unique and historic people. Their antique language pre-dates Arabic, which differs from it significantly.
This area contains a great deal of special wildlife. Hon. Members will recall Gavin Maxwell's wonderful book, "Ring of Bright Water", which was about an otter. Few will recall, however, that the otter, Mijbil, was discovered in and brought back from the marshes of Iraq. It was a unique variety of otter, common in the marsh areas. It is called lutrogale perspicillata maxwelli. It was a previously unknown species. The area also contains wild boar, various kinds of terrapin, some rare and threatened species of bird, such as the pigmy cormorant, dalmatian pelicans, marbled teal, red-breasted geese, lesser white-fronted geese, white-tailed and imperial eagles, Bara reed warblers, Iraqi babblers and grey hypercolius. Some of these birds are there all the year round and are specific to the area.
We should look at the marshes of Iraq as a wetland of unique importance. It is half the size of Switzerland, and it has survived for a long time as an area rich in all kinds of fish, some of which are probably unique to it. The world conservation monitoring centre recently declared the marshes of Iraq a site of primary ecological interest.
As the House knows, I have been describing the sufferings of the people in Iraq for nearly two years. If I turn now to the destruction of this wonderful environmental area, it is not because I have any less concern for the sufferings of the people—the more I visit, the more I learn, the more appalled I am by how harsh their suffering has become. But the world tends to say that these are just another group of suffering people—what can we do about them? So perhaps if we ask the world to think about the ecological impact, those who write letters about

the destruction of the rain forest will bend their minds and hearts to the destruction of an area replicated nowhere else in the world and now being physically destroyed.
Last week, I received a fax from Ayatollah al-Hakim in Tehran. He told me of yet another new dam keeping the waters away from the marshes. In the west, we have become so used to reacting to television programmes and pictures that we may have forgotten to use our imaginations. Perhaps our imaginations are no longer vivid enough to understand the impact of this drainage on a people's heritage—a drainage so profound and so disgraceful that this land, above water for the first time in history, is becoming completely visible.
Saddam Hussein says that this drainage, which he now admits is happening, is for agricultural purposes, but scientists tell me that the land is of such poor quality that it will not sustain even one meagre harvest. It is not the sort of land that can create the wealth that will feed people; it is not land on which subsequent harvests will flourish. There will be just one meagre harvest and then no more.
In desperation, the Amar appeal, of which I am chairman, is conducting a major survey of the marshes. It will be spearheaded by the chairman of the wetlands committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, of which the United Kingdom and most member states of the United Nations are members. It is an unusual body, as it covers private organisations such as the World Wild Fund for Nature.
What will the survey consider, and why is it so critical? We will examine the evidence for recent changes in hydrology and other environmental conditions in the marshlands complex of southern Iraq. We will describe the environmental, ecological and human conditions before the hydrological modification and other changes in environmental character. We will assess the effects of hydrological and other environmental conditions in terms of changes to the flow regime, water quality, soil, vegetation and land use, fisheries and the habitat for wildlife, especially for endangered, rare and threatened species.
We will then evaluate the likely impacts of the changes on the maintenance of the ecological character and environmental quality, on the character of agriculture in the region and on human communities within the region, with particular reference to food security, the local economy, transport, health and social welfare, culture, education and amenity. We will look at human communities outside the region, with particular reference to environmental impacts, resource implications and heritage values, and will make recommendations for restoration and rehabilitation, where appropriate, of the ecological and environmental integrity of the area.
We will also look at more human aspects, such as education, and we hope to match the ecological side of the report, which will be spearheaded by Dr. Ed Maltby of Exeter university, to whom I have already referred, with a report that will be conducted under Professor David Morley, the immediate past head of the Institute of Child Health. His chapters will be buttressed by those on education.
It is vital that we carry out this work. The Iraqi environmental protection group, headed by Sayeed Jayfar and Ibrahim Uloom, pulled together and published in January this year all the known material on the destruction of the marshes and the drainage projects, and it makes disheartening reading. I know that, because the Security


Council held a special meeting for me in December, as I told this place in January, where I was able to show all the captured maps showing the irrigation and its consequences. But since then, nothing has been done, so we have asked the International Union for Nature Conservation—that great body—whether it will conduct the survey under its umbrella, and it is considering doing so.
At the moment, the director-general says that the Amar appeal is an inappropriate body to ask it to do so. I have, therefore, asked our Government and the Governments of the United States and Holland to apply, but, most important, two days ago, through the good offices of the president, Prince Philip, I was able to contact the World Wildlife Fund International in Geneva, where I found a home for this thinking—the director, Claude Martin, who was interested and who understood at once.
It seems that ecologists and environmentalists have been watching and waiting for a trigger that would enable them to act. Their concern is shared by us, and it matches the concern of the Amar appeal friends and supporters about the human aspect of the matter. I am very hopeful that the survey will provide those in authority throughout the world with the material that they may care to use to stop the destruction of the marshes and of the people in the marshes.
We believe that the study is an important matter. Meanwhile, as it proceeds—it has begun even though nobody has invited us to do so, because the scientists recognise the need for haste—the people die. This week, therefore, I met Dr. James Grant, the executive director of UNICEF, and 10 days ago I went to New York and saw Mr. Eliasson, the Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, and begged for their help. I learned that the United Nations is not prepared to act. Resolution 688 covers the entirety of Iraq, and the member nation that proposed it, France, was firm and fierce in wording it, yet the United Nations has turned away from considering the marshes of Iraq and has thus condemned 600,000 people to certain death.
It is not just the starvation, illness or the lack of water which will result in human and wildlife extinction. Access routes run along the top of the dykes, which mean; that not only Land-Rovers but tanks can drive into the heart of the marshes. There is currently a brief cessation, because late March and early April always bring floods. Those floods are now hardly coming into the marshes, because the dykes have stopped the rivers, but none the less there is a little water. We believe that, when that water ceases, as it will in April and May, the killing fields will begin in earnest. The people inside are not armed to defend themselves. The ones whom I have seen on my own trips have just carried old rifles and few bullets.
I want to read only the last paragraph of a letter that I received yesterday from Mr. Eliasson from New York. He kindly says that it was a pleasure to meet me and that he admires my work, but that is not the point. He says:
As I explained in New York, the United Nations, in the present situation, is not in a position to assist directly in support of your concrete programmes.
That means no aid for the marshes, as we are the only people who are giving aid. He goes on:
I have, however, taken careful note of the proposed study of the marshes and will be consulting with my colleagues as to what we can do in this regard. The subject certainly deserves increased attention by potentially interested parties.
I know that the United Nations is the servant of its members, and that it is up to us to decide what we want to

do. There is no shortage of material. The special rapporteur for human rights in Iraq, the former Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, delivered his report on 19 February. It made terrible reading. On 5 March, members voted on it and proposed a resolution, which was good. It was adopted by a vote of 46 for, one against and 16 abstentions. Again, they stated their deep concern about the grave violations of human rights by the Government of Iraq and said that these have led to a deterioration of the situation of the civilian population in southern Iraq, particularly in the southern marshes.
The motion states that the members express their
strong condemnation of the massive violations of human rights, of the gravest nature, for which the Government of Iraq is responsible, resulting in an all-pervasive order of repression and oppression which is sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror, in particular:
Summary and arbitrary executions, orchestrated mass executions and mass graves throughout Iraq, extrajudicial killings, including political killings, in particular in the northern region of Iraq, in southern Shiah centres and in the southern marsh area;
The widespread routine practice of systematic torture in its most cruel forms;
Enforced or involuntary disappearances, routinely practised arbitrary arrests and detention, including of women, the elderly and children and consistent and routine failure to respect due process and the rule of law;
Suppression of freedom of thought, expression and association and violations of property rights;
The unwillingness of the Government of Iraq to honour its responsibilities in respect of the economic rights of the population.
The motion goes on and on and on. It requests the Secretary-General
to take the necessary measures in order to send human rights monitors to such locations as would facilitate improved information flows and assessment and would help in the independent verification of reports on the situation of human rights within Iraq.
Knowledge, knowledge and more knowledge is what we are asked to provide. I am happy to give the United Nations the knowledge that it is not gaining for itself from the marshes. However, while the knowledge flows, people are dying and no aid will be given to the marshes in case that jeopardises the northern aid or creates other political tensions. The toehold in Basra recently achieved by UNICEF is the Deputy Secretary-General's sop to Cerberus. The marshes are surely the hell beyond the jaws of Cerberus.
I will end with a thought that came to me as I listened to Ayatollah Al-Hakim in Tehran. At the end of a meeting at 3 am, we were all very tired. I had just come from a four-hour meeting with a wonderful man—an Iranian appointed by the President of Iran to take responsibility for all Iran's relationships within Iraq—Mr. Agamohamadi. He was a former Member of Parliament before he was appointed by the President to his new task. He is a large ray of light on the horizon. He spent a month inside Iraq during the uprising under the care of Mr. Talabani. He saw the horrors. Some of the things he told me were indeed horrific. He said that we had seen nothing yet.
Mr. Agamohamadi went there and brought out some of the people who had been injured by the chemical bombs in the attack. He saw thousands of people being killed, running here and there, not knowing what to do or where to go. He saw many mothers killed with their babies held to their chests. He saw families of five or six killed together. He saw all that with his own eyes. He said that if a person


opposes Saddam's regime today, all his family will be in danger and under threat. It is impossible to calculate the number of missing people, because the number is unlimited. That short statement encapsulates the reason for my four-hour meeting with Mr. Agamohamadi.
Later, I spoke to Ayatollah Al-Hakim about that meeting. It was very late, and somehow his attention was drawn back to the early 1980s, when he was captured and imprisoned. He was placed in a deep cell with no light. It was damp and he had no water or food. He was taken out only to be tortured. He was tortured ferociously for weeks on end and after each torture session thrown back into the cell. The man who was in the cell before him had gone completely mad. Ayatollah Al-Hakim held on, and he said nothing. In the end, his torturers gave up on him after three months. They said that he must have had something rather curious wrong with him which meant that his flesh could not feel pain. He had not cried once, but their perception was not true: he felt it all.
After Ayatollah Al-Hakim had told me this, he turned to Sheik Mahmoodi and said, "I don't know why I'm talking like this. Sheik Mahmoodi had a much worse time than me." Sheik Mahmoodi told me what had happened to him and then said, "But that is little compared to what some people went through."
As we spoke, 300 people were entering Tehran from Iraq. They had been released from prison, which was astonishing. They had served 10, 11 or 12 years—we must remember that Saddam Hussein took control in 1979. Later in the week, they began to die because, as they left prison, they had been given thallium injections. To have hope dashed so cruelly is unbelievable.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, to the House and to anyone who will listen that this is a tyrant whose evil is unbelievable. If we fail to help, what right have we to say the Lord's Prayer, to seek delivery from evil for ourselves, so readily and happily each day? What right have we to look the Iraqi victims in the eye?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) has chosen the issue of south Iraq to feature in this Adjournment debate. She has rightly characterised the regime of Saddam Hussein as evil. As she has made so clear, the conditions in Iraq generally, and the conditions in south Iraq in particular, are dire and are brought about, at least in part, by the deliberate policy of an evil man.
My hon. Friend has visited the area frequently and she probably knows more about it than anyone else in the House. Her contribution to the relief of suffering in south Iraq has been very great. I am glad that she welcomed our meeting with representatives of the Iraqi National Congress. I met them, but, more important, so did my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister.
We very much welcomed the statements of the Iraqi National Congress to the effect that it looks forward to the introduction of a democratic and pluralistic system of government in Iraq and, more important perhaps, that it believes that Iraq should exist within her current frontiers and that the problems of minorities such as the Kurds in

north Iraq should be addressed by way of autonomy rather than by creating an independent Kurdistan. We strongly supported that approach. I was glad that the Iraqi National Congress made it plain to us that it was not seeking the creation of an independent Kurdistan.
My hon. Friend has spoken about Iraq in general and about south Iraq in particular. It would be helpful if I were first to outline the general nature of our policy and then consider south Iraq.
In setting our general policy towards Iraq, we are governed by three major considerations: first, that Iraq should not be in a position to threaten the security and stability of the region; secondly, that Iraq must respect the sovereignty of Kuwait; and thirdly, that we must do what we can to bring an end to the repression by Saddam Hussein of the peoples of Iraq.
Those three general propositions are reflected in the detail of the Security Council resolutions. As my hon. Friend has made plain, there has been substantial non-compliance with the particular mandatory terms of the resolution. It may be helpful if I remind the House of the respects in which Saddam Hussein has fallen short of what is asked of him.
To start with, with regard to the frontier with Kuwait, Saddam Hussein has failed to participate in the last four meetings of the boundary demarcation commission. Police posts on Kuwaiti territory were removed only under pressure and there have been repeated statements by Iraqi officials implying that Kuwait is part of Iraq.
I now turn to the question of mass destruction. Iraq has not accepted Security Council resolution 707 or provided for final and complete disclosure of all aspects of weapons of mass destruction. It has not accepted Security Council resolution 715 or agreed to the long-term monitoring of its weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has not complied with the resolutions on the return of detainees from Kuwait. Perhaps most important of all—this is the issue on which my hon. Friend dwelt—he has continued his policy of repression. Repression continues in southern Iraq. The internal embargo of the three northern Governments also continues. There is a complete denial of human rights throughout Iraq.
For those reasons and others, the Security Council has decided to continue with the policy of sanctions, and it will continue to do so for as long as we are justified in that policy by non-compliance with relevant resolutions. It is untrue to suggest that there has been any softening in the policy of western or coalition powers towards Iraq. We are determined to ensure compliance with all the relevant terms of the resolutions.
Much has been said about the condition of Iraqis in general. The condition of the Iraqi people is serious. However, it is important to remind the House that it is serious because of the deliberate policy of Saddam Hussein. The sanctions regime does not impose a prohibition on the importation of either food or medicines, and there is a provision for the approval of other humanitarian requirements. Many people say that the Iraqis do not have the money to pay for food and medicines. That is because Saddam Hussein has not agreed to the procedure laid down under Security Council resolutions 706 and 712. He is entitled to sell oil to the value of US $1·6 billion from which there will be moneys available to purchase food and medicines if that is what he chooses to do. For political reasons, he has determined not


to agree to the procedures laid down under those resolutions and, to that extent, he is wholly responsible for the plight of his own population.
I now turn specifically to south Iraq. My hon. Friend has highlighted in graphic terms the situation in the marshes and the abuse to which Saddam Hussein is subjecting the people of south Iraq as a deliberate policy. I accept the broad picture that she draws. There is a grave infringement of human rights. It is not entirely right to say that western and coalition powers or the United Nations have entirely disregarded what is going on.
Most dramatically, we have established a no-fly zone in which we participate. The object of the zone is to prevent Iraqi aircraft from being used in attacks against the population of south Iraq. That has been successful to the limited extent possible, in the sense that Iraqi aircraft no longer participate in attacks on people in south Iraq generally or in the marshes, and they cannot assist ground forces to that end. I make it plain that the coalition countries will not accept any interference by Iraq with the overflight of coalition aircraft over the marshes, and that a right of self-defence exists.
I also accept that the no-fly zone is not a total solution to the problem. Substantial Iraqi ground forces are involved in the marshes and the no-fly zone does not prevent their military action. The question that arises is whether we would be able or willing to create a safe haven in the way in which a safe haven was created in north Iraq. The answer to that is no, although I do not say that with any pleasure. There are substantial deployments of Iraqi troops in south Iraq and it is not plausible to suppose that they would voluntarily leave that area. If they left the area, it could be only as a result of the deployment of substantial coalition military power, probably ground forces. I cannot say to the House that the United Nations can do that.
That being so, we have to rely on the humanitarian policies of the United Nations and of other agencies. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to the organisation with which she works, which has been by far the most active in the area. The memorandum of understanding negotiated by the United Nations is, we hope, being rolled forward and it will cover a further year. We hope very much that the United Nations will be able to establish a presence in south Iraq. I accept that the contribution made by that policy is not sufficient to meet the grave needs in south Iraq. I know that I have come to the end of the allotted time, so, although there is much more that I should say, I must end. I do so by congratulating my hon. Friend, first, on highlighting the issue and, secondly, on her personal contribution.

Mid Cheshire Hospital Trust

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The maintenance of free speech is the basis of everything we do in the House, and the use of Adjournment debates or debates generally to raise matters that are of great concern to our constituents is strongly cherished by hon. Members, especially with the growing habit of Ministers creating agencies or commercial units that remove responsibilities from them to a third party on the basis of a commercial interest.
When the national health service trusts were set up, many of us warned that the theory that one could bring about a major change in health care without first explaining and exploring the ways in which it could be done would lead to a considerable set of problems. I am sorry to say—I make it clear that I take no pleasure in this—that in my constituency, the Mid Cheshire hospital trust, which was one of the first trusts to be set up, has proved conclusively that, far from working, as the Secretary of State delights in telling us, national health service trusts are now running into considerable problems. The problems are becoming obvious to patients and to their families, and they are also having direct effects on health care.
When the Mid Cheshire trust was set up, the then Secretary of State for Health sent me a warm and reassuring letter. It is important to quote his words exactly:
that establishment of a Trust will give clear benefits and improved quality of service to patients; that management has the skills and capacity—including strong, effective leadership, sufficient financial and personal management expertise and adequate information systems—to run the unit effectively; that senior professional staff, especially consultants, are involved in the management of the unit; that the Trust will be financially viable.
I should make it clear that that letter was written not by the present Secretary of State, but by the male who preceded her. The style of English does not change although Secretaries of State may change from time to time
I was then told:
I am now writing to tell you that I have decided to establish The Mid Cheshire Hospitals as an NHS Trust, to become operational from 1 April 1991.
It is important to understand that Leighton hospital, which was the centre of the Mid Cheshire hospital trust, has consistently been underfunded. Physically, it is at the bottom of the Mersey region and, before the creation of the trust, it never received sufficient cash to deal with the real health care problems of the Crewe and Nantwich area.
When the move towards a trust was mooted, I asked general practitioners in the area whether they foresaw any great inward movement of patients which would somehow transform the trust's financial situation, having been assured that that was what was intended. Unfortunately, far from the hospital suddenly becoming magically viable—even with the extra sums of money donated by the region to set up the political stalking horse—although more patients were certainly treated, there was an overspend every year, and we are now approaching the second major crisis.
Initially—I suspect because it was an election year—it was somehow possible for the region to find an extra sum of money to assist the Mid Cheshire trust last year when


it had financial difficulties. We all knew what was happening; we knew that the trust was overspent and was madly trying to take money from its reserves and from other sources to try to balance the books. The executives were not especially secretive about it, although I received large numbers of reassuring letters telling me that they could not understand why I did not trust their financial doings, and that they were dealing with the problems more than adequately.
The chief executive wrote to me on 20 March 1992:
You will be pleased to know that the Trust will meet all its financial obligations at the end of the financial year, including a virtual break-even position against budget. This is a result of the tight financial management of the Trust's affairs, which has prevented the potential for financial problems which was identified earlier in the financial year.
Anyone who deals with that district hospital knows that, whatever else is happening, the standard of health care is becoming a matter of considerable worry. That is due not to members of staff but to difficulties in specific areas. First, there is a problem with closed wards. Whatever the Department of Health says, the reality is that, before the trust was created, wards were open and, after its creation, a number of wards were closed. Before the trust was created, we had full use of all the wards; now, several are only partially used.
I am perfectly happy for the Minister to tell me that that is because we are so much more efficient; we wheel people in and out with such speed that they do not need wards or beds. That is a medical argument which can be defended in general medical terms, but the increasing evidence that this year we have reached a financial crunch cannot be defended.
Not for the first time, the trust is badly overspent; it is £2 million short of the amount required. It has held a number of talks with the regions and with other financial controllers within the NHS, according to evidence given to me by the Minister. The trust was then told that it must rapidly find £700,000—there was some suggestion that it was required to find it within two weeks. It could only meet that enormous overspend by shutting down facilities and beginning to sack staff, which has happened. That makes nonsense of all the information that has been handed out officially by the Mid Cheshire hospitals.
My constituents have found that there is enormous pressure on hospital services. The staff have had considerable and constant worries about their jobs. Although we were told that front-line staff would not go, there were already instances of re-evaluation—a nice word for moving people around—of nurses' jobs, which meant that many had lost their existing status and been moved to other jobs.
During the year, I received a number of statements, such as that the trust must carry over to subsequent financial years any over or underspending against its budget. I was also told that the likely outturn for Mid Cheshire hospital trust would be in the range of £100,000 either side of a break-even position against the budget. Frankly, that has not been our experience.
As a result, when the chief executive asked the regional hospital authority for extra money he was told, somewhat sharply, that it would not be forthcoming. I can only assume that his naivety had not made it clear to him that the money made available at the time of the general

election will not be made available when there are four years to go before the Government have to put their health policies to the test of the local populace.
The role of the regional hospital authority ought to be considered in great detail. There is no independent way for the actions of anyone within the national health service to be monitored properly. Luckily, there are forms of monitoring for the care given by medical professionals. If we are to believe the Conservative Government's theories, the running of trusts ought to be transparent, but they are far from clear.
Within our region, the chairman, Sir Donald Wilson, has taken some major decisions, which have led to considerable questioning from elected members. He decided, with his colleagues, that it would be a good idea if the regional hospital trust authority bought a very expensive flat and furnished it, because it would somehow save money when visiting firemen needed to be put up for the night. I want to see the figures on which such decisions were based before deciding that they were sensible financial decisions. That example demonstrates the level of management in the regional hospital authority.
When the continuing underfunding of Crewe became clear, it was obvious that the regional health authority had decided that one way to solve the difficulty would be by amalgamating the Crewe district, which was underfunded, with the Macclesfield district, which in theory was overfunded—if that is possible. It therefore began to moot the question of a reorganisation. It was not merely a reorganisation. When the authority advertised the jobs concerned, there was such a poor response that the young lady drawing up the short list suddenly decided, after the closing date, to put her name on the list. She was appointed to the job—I am sure that it was on the basis of her brilliance.
In case there are any doubts about the reasons for mooting the reorganisation, a consultation document—a laughable title—was produced entitled, "A new district health authority for the people of Crewe and Macclesfield." That gave the game away. It said:
Crewe District Health Authority is presently £8·1 million short of its full weighted capitation position"—
that refers to the new form of calculation that the Department intends to use—
and is moving towards its target as resources are allocated each year. Macclesfield District Health Authority is £5·4 million above its weighted capitation and must therefore lose this amount over future years.
In other words, the region's answer is not to examine the needs of Crewe district health authority but to say, "If we jam these two awkward health authorities together, we can somehow balance the books at the end of three or four years, because no one will notice that what we are doing is taking money from Macclesfield and losing it in Crewe."
Not surprisingly, that news did not delight the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or me. One might have thought, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that combination of hon. Members would be designed to make even the present Health Minister think twice, but apparently we are having no effect whatever. So impressed are Ministers with the quality of management of Sir Donald Wilson that, when the east midlands got into real problems, they did not look outside or advertise from some brilliant brain to come in, but went instead to the Mersey region and asked Sir Donald Wilson to take over. That was astonishing to those of us in the Crewe area, who had already seen the effects of decisions that were being


taken by Sir Donald and his cronies in our area and who had considerable reservations about the quality of those decisions.
We have been told in a short space of time not only that Crewe must find £700,000, because it is £2 million overspent, and lose a number of jobs, some of them by compulsory redundancy—the figure given in the original assessment was 50—but that the £700,000 is just the first step to reducing the gap of £2 million that has been identified.
Then, surprise surprise, this chief executive gentleman who has been so lauded and who is apparently so active in the defence of the extraordinary finances of the department, resigns at very short notice—because, we are told, he has been headhunted. The joke on the wards goes: "They've had the head. When will they come and collect the rest of the body?" We have considerable doubts about whether that gentleman's expertise is what has recommended him to the region. One might have thought that, even under the present Government, anyone who gets more than £2 million overspent on two years would find himself in some considerable difficulty.
Crewe has always faced problems of underfunding. It needed considerable injections of money for staff, and faces a £4 million bill for building work. The roof of the hospital built by a gentleman called Poulson is now collapsing, even though the building has not been there for very long. I am no great architect, but I suspect that, in a hospital, a roof is quite useful. I do not know how many things can be done without, but doing without a roof could be mildly embarrassing.
Crewe will now have to find the money not only from health care but from jobs. These days, people in hospitals do not carry normal titles; for example, we have people responsible for "hotel services"—a laughable title. I suppose that hospitals may bear some resemblance to British hotels, but that simply tells us something about the problems of the tourist industry. Such was the level of expertise within the trust that, at the very moment when the person responsible for hotel services was being told that the job no longer existed, management were seeking to appoint someone from the commercial sector to run the laundry and other so-called services. That is extraordinary and cannot in any way be defended.
The Minister may say that I am not giving an accurate picture. His own Department engaged Price Waterhouse to do a survey of the hospital recently and, in the past three months, Price Waterhouse has reported—for some reason, the Government seem to be keeping quiet about it—that the hospital is not only efficient but very efficient. It is not the staff who are the problem—nor is it the delivery of health care, even in the extraordinarily difficult conditions under which staff are operating, with wards closed at weekends and people being moved around. Quality of care is not the problem.
I should have thought that the Minister would now think to himself, "Price Waterhouse says that the place is efficient; there is an overspend of £2 million for the second year running; the money can no longer be taken out of the reserves, so the business of sacking staff has to be considered" and ask himself—or better still, the Secretary of State should ask herself—"What is really wrong? Is it the fact that we do not allow enough money to the district hospital to provide the services that we demand of it?"
The Secretary of State has frequently told me, in letters and in the House, that I should be proud of the hospital,

because it is treating more people. I have no doubt that the Minister has the figures today and will be saying, "Look how clever we are. More people are being treated." But if Leighton hospital is overtrading and if the Secretary of State demands that that level of care is kept up—and she has given the instructions that it should not only continue to give that level of care but increase the rate at which it is treating patients—how does the Minister explain the gap between the resources needed for the jobs and the amount of money that is available for the trust?
Perhaps the Minister will say that that is a matter for the trust itself. He must know that the staff are now at risk and that morale at the hospital is dangerously and unacceptably low—and I have lived in hospitals for much of my life. People are deeply worried about the future of their jobs. It is important to understand that the lessons of Crewe trust and its problems have not been lost on the surrounding areas. Halton trust, which became a trust yesterday, learned its first lesson from Crewe, closing one of its best and most well-equipped wards on the very first day. Crewe is offering an example to people in the north-west region of how not to run a hospital.
There is also the problem of community care. So far, no one has worked out that, whereas hospital treatment is free at the point of use, once the social services act as a filter between elderly and mentally handicapped people and the services they require, a larger part of the cost will inevitably be paid by the patients themselves. That has not been sufficiently highlighted in the run-up to community care.
I have a number of questions to ask the Minister, but I must tell him that the recitation of a series of very spurious statistics will not be a sufficient response to my points of concern. Does the Minister accept that there are such severe problems in the Mid Cheshire hospital trust that it requires an independent investigation into the financial management, into staff and patient care and, above all, into the amount of money available to the trust from the regional hospital authority?
Will the Minister also instigate an urgent inquiry into what is happening at regional level? How does he justify the decisions being taken, such as the purchase of flats, at a time when health authorities are being told to cut the level of services they provide?
How on earth can the Minister justify the arbitrary and outrageous decision to force the two health authorities—Crewe and Macclesfield—to combine in order to save money? After all, that is what it is all about. There is no suggestion that there will be a better level of health care; there is simply the suggestion in the so-called consultation document that it is a way to make the two budgets balance.
The experiment has failed—the creation of trusts has not provided better care and the money has not followed the patient. All it means is that the Government are increasingly able to run down our hospitals on the very weak pretext that somehow or other the decision is being made by local people, who, the Government say, are now able to decide their own health care priorities.
That is a manifest farce. Local people have no say in what happens in their hospitals; they have no say in what happens with staffing levels; they have no say in what wards are closed; they have no say in the decision on which people are moved around on weekends; they have no say in who should be sacked—they have absolutely no say in what happens either in the regional hospital authority or in their local hospital trust.
What is more, the clear evidence of financial problems is never discussed in public. Indeed, even when I ask questions in this House, the Secretary of State simply says, "There has been a meeting between all the relevant authorities, it has all been sorted out, don't worry about it." I not only worry about it: I have a deep feeling of unease about the management in my hospitals and certainly in my region. Moving someone who is incompetent from one region to another simply because his predecessor was even more incompetent is a pretty poor decision.
If the Minister is not prepared to agree to an independent assessment, we will know that the Government are not serious about setting up trusts or the delivery of health care. If they want to privatise the health service through incompetence, they are doing well; but if they want to provide health care, the Miniser had better answer my questions today—otherwise we will know that elected Members of Parliament cannot even get answers on behalf of patients.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) began by speaking about free speech. There is no danger that she will not continue to exercise that right very effectively. Nor is there any danger that we will not continue to answer her. She touched on ministerial accountability in the health service. I must tell her that I was in my place in the early minutes of April fool's day to discuss neurosciences in Liverpool. I was back in my place in the early hours of this morning—3.30 am—to debate the London ambulance service; I am here again now, self-evidently, to discuss a particular local hospital with the hon. Lady. I shall continue to be in my place to discuss mental health with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring). Junior doctors have their little complaint about how long they work; junior Ministers occasionally find themselves in the same position, so we empathise.
The hon. Lady raised so many different points that I do not think that I can cover all of them. However, I start with her request for an independent inquiry into the finances of the trust and the local health authority. There is likely to be a deficit of about £500,000 at the end of the year, which is just over 1 per cent. of income. It is possible that that has been caused by the recruitment of additional consultants, without the total co-operation of the purchasers.
That is not an insurmountable problem. Several trusts have overspent, but the vast majority have balanced their books. It is certainly not something which I consider to be a proper matter for independent inquiry. The position is clear and it is being dealt with, so I see no reason to accede to the hon. Lady's request.
There are a great many good things about the trust. In-patient activity rose by 6 per cent. during the year, which is excellent news. It mirrors the experience of many other trusts.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept the figure of £2 million that was given by the executives of the hospital?

Mr. Sackville: I am advised that, when the figures for 1992–93 are available, it is expected that the trust will show an operating loss of about £500,000.

Mrs. Dunwoody: No.

Mr. Sackville: That is the advice that I have been given and I have no reason to doubt it.
The hon. Lady made a number of specific points, but, in particular, she raised the question of a flat that has been purchased by the regional health authority. It decided to use endowment funds to purchase the flat so that it could save money on the very high hotel bills for people who visit the region. If there is any question of impropriety, I have no doubt that the district auditor will have something to say. The matter has been raised with me on more than one occasion and I have raised it with the region. I am satisfied that it took that decision in good faith. The hon. Lady is being a little mischievous in implying that there is something wrong or strange about it.
The hon. Lady said a great deal about trusts in general. It is becoming increasingly clear that trusts are providing the proper model for the delivery of health care. The hon. Lady should realise that a hospital running itself, with its own board of local people—who, together with management, take decisions that they believe to be in the best interests of patients—is the right way to proceed. Much better that than that the hospital should find itself an adjunct to a distant bureaucracy.
The experience of trusts to date has been most encouraging. The hon. Lady should not tarnish the name of trusts on the basis of a minor financial imbalance at her local trust hospital. We are receiving the message here and from abroad that people in other parts of Europe are examining the system that we are creating with the purchaser-provider split by giving hospitals trust status and, in turn, giving health authorities the funds with which to commission health care for the populations for which they are responsible.
People from other European countries are saying, "This is the model that we would like to set up." I have heard that said by officials from Spain and Germany. I am confident that others will be looking to us for the model for how to deliver internal market health care. Whether Hillary will grace us with a visit is something which is still in doubt, but I have no doubt that we shall be watched carefully by the rest of the world. As I have said, much of what the hon. Lady said about trusts was entirely unwarranted.
The hon. Lady talked about Sir Don Wilson, the regional chairman. He has done a remarkable job. The hon. Lady may disagree with some of the decisions that he has taken, but, with firm leadership, he has made a great many advances in the Mersey region that are the envy of other parts of the country. The fact that he has been asked to examine the problems of the west midlands is a further tribute to his skills. I do not know what evidence the hon. Lady can produce to cast aspersions on Sir Don Wilson's management skills.
I understand that the hon. Lady is much exercised about the proposed merger of the Crewe and Macclesfield authorities. She has described it as the merger of two awkward health authorities. I do not know whether that is a comment on the two Members concerned, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) would be disappointed if he knew that he had


been referred to in those terms. The two hon. Members, the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend, are both acknowledged experts in health care. If the merger takes place, I think that they will find it a stimulating partnership—a marriage made in heaven. I have no doubt that the people in both areas will find it greatly to their benefit.
The hon. Lady knows that there are advantages in some mergers of health authorities. The idea of 192 different authorities purchasing health care, as we have had in the past, may not be the best model. It may be much better that there should be larger configurations of perhaps 500,000 or more residents, so that there is more clout when it comes to exercising the purchasing function and dealing with providers.
Health authorities, as a result of mergers, will be able to make more sensible decisions over the gamut of the local population. It will probably be of great benefit to the local population to have a larger purchaser that can make the appropriate decisions and have much more flexibility in the purchasing of health care. I think that that will turn out to be true. The hon. Lady will find from the health authorities that have already merged that some of them have found an optimum size.
Purchasing is a new skill within the health service. Many of those who work for local health authorities are only now beginning to discover that they are no longer running hospitals. They are commissioners of health care, not hospital managers. It is a skill in itself. The contracting arrangements between health authorities, trusts and providers will be an important part of the system in future.
The hon. Lady mentioned other matters, including community care. Yesterday saw the first day of the new system. It poses a considerable challenge, and it will demand a great deal of give and take on all sides, between hospitals, the NHS and local authorities, to ensure that it works, that patients are assessed quickly and efficiently, that beds are not blocked as a result of failure to assess and that the right provision is made for people coming out of hospital or for others in the community. A great spirit of co-operation will be required. I take the opportunity further to emphasise that point.
There is no reason why community care should not work. We know that we need assessment in each area, and in this instance it will be carried out by the social services, of all those requiring care in the community, whether post-hospital or otherwise.
The hon. Lady mentioned morale. She is making a great deal of what are minor financial problems locally and

painting the blackest possible picture. There is no point in doing that. She is helping only to exacerbate the problems of morale among staff locally. I do not see that that is doing any favours to her local health service.
The hon. Lady mentioned the departure of the chief executive. I cannot comment on that or on his decision to go. I can say only that his replacement is being sought. The hon. Lady should not seek to find conspiracy theories or any other excuses to write headlines on the chief executive's departure.
I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree with me that the hospital trust has already achieved much of which it can be proud. I have said that a record number of people have been treated during its first year. Out-patient attendance has increased by 2,000 and 70,000 accident and emergency cases were dealt with. The number of patients seen was 9 per cent. above the level that the trust was contracted to provide. That is one of the reasons why many trusts this year have run into temporary financial problems. They are the victims of their own success.
The numbers of patients treated during the year has been much greater than that budgeted for, mainly on the elective side. This has meant disruptions, which is unfortunate. Sometimes, there have been temporary ward closures. On the other hand, in many instances patients have been treated earlier than they would have been. I accept that any disruption is unsatisfactory, and guidance has been sent to the health service to ensure that the contracts work more flexibly over the year. Those in the health service will be advised to monitor contracts more carefully to ensure that what happened this year does not happen again.
The hon. Lady is trying to tell the House that everything is going wrong in the local health service. She is saying that it is underfunded. It is true that her local health authority is below capitation. There is the same problem in Bolton, and that has been the position for years. There is an intention in Bolton, as in Crewe, to bring the districts that are below target up to target. As the hon. Lady well knows, if the merger with Macclesfield goes ahead, that will lead to a change in the funding arrangements in her authority, to the benefit of her constituents.
It has been useful to have the debate. I think that the hon. Lady misrepresents the situation. There is much of which to be proud. Those who work in her local hospital have done a wonderful job and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so.

Behaviourally Disturbed People

Mr. Richard Spring: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this morning. I am also most grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for being here today to reply to the debate.
Last summer, I was contacted by very distressed parents in my constituency. What was revealed to me then and continues today is an example of human tragedy and suffering which moved me considerably. It would be helpful if I summarised my constituent's difficulties. As a teenager she became pregnant and had an abortion, after which she exhibited previously non-existent behavioural difficulties. In the United States the phenomenon has been identified and described as post-abortion shock syndrome. That may have been the cause of what followed. Seven years on, her parents contacted me. They were desperate. Their daughter had been a patient in the psychiatric ward of West Suffolk hospital in Bury St. Edmunds—a ward which gives the highest standards of psychiatric care and to which I pay unqualified tribute this morning.
In the opinion of the senior psychiatrist at the hospital, and, indeed, of outside independent psychiatric assessors, my constituent did not essentially have a psychiatric disorder. Furthermore, there had been violence directed against ward staff, which caused them concern and consternation. Psychiatric opinion indicated that her condition was behavioural rather than psychiatric. As she was diagnosed as suffering from an untreatable personality disorder rather than a treatable illness, it was not possible to detain her under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1984.
My constituent was transferred to the region's medium secure unit for those with mental illness, the Norvic clinic in Norwich, which I have visited. Under the stricter regime there, she exhibited more restrained behavioural patterns. However, on discharge to a hostel, symptoms of chronic disorder reappeared and she returned to live with her parents. At home her actions including crying and wailing and banging her head incessantly against a wall. Where could she go? The psychiatric ward declined to take her because her condition was not considered pyschiatrically treatable. The district health authority was unable to help either for that reason, although it was very willing to do so.
I was advised that the criminal justice route should be explored. A previous move had simply resulted in my constituent being sent home with a fine. At this point, I should perhaps stop to say that all the routes that I explored on my constituent's behalf last summer seemed closed. My constituent has now had a baby. I am grateful to Suffolk social services for the concern that they have shown in helping her during this difficult time.
The nub of the issue is clearly this: where does someone who is not psychiatrically assessible go? Clearly, for the layman like myself and other hon. Members, there is no tangible difference between someone who appears to be psychiatrically or behaviourally disturbed and someone who is. The manifestations appear similar. Tragically, such an individual may commit an act of violence against another person, so there is clearly a public safety aspect.
My great fear is that our prisons contain people who have similar problems, when prison is clearly as inappropriate response to this tragic human disorder. I have taken the advice of several forensic psychiatrists and

I have to tell the House that my constituent is not alone in her ghastly dilemma. There are many in our country for whom there is no clear provision, because they fall outside certain definitions of mental disorder.
There is, of course, rising concern and awareness about mental illness. Indeed, that was highlighted as a key objective in "The Health of the Nation". Moreover, one of its strategic elements is the development of comprehensive local services, with local purchasing and planning arrangements which ensure continuity of health and personal care. A start has been made in Suffolk.
I have alluded to the Norvic clinic in Norwich, which is the only provider of medium secure beds in the East Anglian region. Districts do not, for example, have psychiatric teams whose specific responsibility is to provide more local services for mentally disordered patients. Indeed, at the core of the Reedport's recommendations is the view that district health authorities should be responsible for purchasing a more comprehensive spectrum of psychiatric provision for mentally disordered offenders. Clearly without the support of her parents and family, my constituent might well now be in prison herself.
The thrust of what the Reed committee reported was that mentally disordered offenders who need care and treatment should receive it from the health and social services rather than the criminal justice system. That theme and focus is not new. In 1975 the Butler report noted:
In the face of the widely acknowledged and urgent need, we have been disturbed to learn that little progress has as yet been made in establishing needs, or even in providing temporary arrangements".
Indeed, the thread in the Reed report of last year of a multi-agency review had been taken up by the Aarvold committee in 1972. It recommended that a patient leaving a special hospital should not normally be discharged direct to his family or to casual lodgings, but, wherever practicable, should go first to a local psychiatric hospital or a hostel for an initial period of rehabilitation.
All those learned reports have grappled with the same problem and all have highlighted the inadequacy of bed spaces in medium secure provision. Reed's targets of 1,000 beds by 1995 and 1,500 beds as a final target was originally set at 2,000 as long ago as 1974. The present figure is some 635, considerably below recommended levels. In my region, that would suggest that another 20 bed spaces are required in the medium secure unit.
"The Health of the Nation" noted that mental illness accounted for 14 per cent. of certificated sickness absence; 3 to 6 per cent. of adults over 16 may suffere depressive disorders; 2 to 7 per cent. suffer anxiety states. Others, of course, suffer from schizophrenia and dementia. In 1991, there were 5,567 suicides, with a notable rise among younger men. Mental illness has a wide range of manifestations.
The figures involve substantial numbers of our fellow citizens and the number will surely rise. But I cannot stress sufficiently that clinical needs and public safety are inextricably bound together. Of course, I accept that it is difficult to make clinical distinctions about the mentally disordered. However, in cases such as that of my constituent, it has been confirmed by many conversations with psychiatrists that there appears to be a grey area which current arrangements do not satisfactorily address.
I realise that the Reed report's recommendations that the number of spaces in medium secure units be substantially increased will be expensive. I shall explore that later. Clearly, we also need to examine how care for mentally disturbed patients can be enhanced for both existing mental patients and those who might be moved from prison to hospital. My hon. Friend will know that the Reed committee recommended a substantial transfer of prisoners into appropriate hospitals. Of course, there are dangers. For all its imperfections in this context, the criminal justice system at least offers the opportunity of a trial or, indeed, redress to an offender. Being sent to a hospital cannot and should not be undertaken without taking into account the interests of public safety. It cannot be seen as an alternative to remand in custody.
Therefore, in responding to mentally disordered offenders, the actual offence has to be responded to. A co-operative approach is needed to ensure an appropriate response. When, in the instance of my constituent, the consultant psychiatrist who took her case offered to stay in touch with the police if she was arrested, it was a generous and helpful offer, but a one-off response to my intervention. What we are talking about is a much higher level of co-ordination.
I should like to dwell on the ways in which to address that problem, accepting, as Reed recommended, an increase in the number of regional secure units with bed spaces of fewer than 100, as at the Norvic in Norwich. The reason for that is that the psychiatric ward at West Suffolk hospital and other similar wards undertake treatment for mentally ill patients without physical restraint and under conditions of minimum security. Violent, aggressive or disruptive patients cannot be restrained in such an open environment. My constituent, however, was not regarded as treatable anyway. In those circumstances, therefore, all that can be done is to resort to heavy tranquillisation rather than therapy.
In 1991, the East Anglian regional health authority established a working party to investigate the problem of providing for patients with mental disorders. As a result, there is a possibility that sub-regional units could be established. From my many conversations with psychiatrists, however, I know that they would be reluctant to use them. They want a network of small, intensively staffed units in each district. The expense would be high, but current ECRs—extra contractual referrals—for mentally disordered patients are costing up to £200 per in-patient week in the private sector. The cost of processing the individual through the criminal justice system and keeping that person in prison is extremely high.
Larger institutions, such as medium secure units, have an important role to play, especially for the real offender, potential or otherwise. There still remains, however., the challenging behaviour of individuals such as my constituent. The criminal justice route is not appropriate and such individuals do not respond to psychiatric treatment either.
I have consulted a number of psychiatrists, particularly in my constituency. Individuals with behavioural difficulties require a separate unit where they can be treated with appropriate behaviour therapy. In a county such as Suffolk that would imply the provision of a unit with about 10 beds, probably located on a hospital site. Obviously, there would have to be some element of security, aided by appropriately trained staff. After

behaviour therapy of perhaps six months or up to two years, individuals could then be discharged or transferred to a suitable residential place.
By definition, the focus would be narrow, but we are talking not about a large number of people, but about a sufficient number who have no place to go and whose lives are often marred by personal tragedy in consequence. Hope would be offered and the use of non-improving drugs could be avoided.
The whole issue of mental illness in its various manifestations is no longer something which is pushed under the carpet. The White Paper "The Health of the Nation" recognised that admirably. The Reed report has focused attention on the needs of those with mental difficulties. I greatly welcome both reports and the spotlight that they have thrown on the blighted lives of many thousands of our fellow citizens.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on securing time to debate the important topic of behaviourally disturbed people. I also congratulate him on doing so in such an eloquent and moving way.
This aspect of health and social care is truly multi-disciplinary and it is right that health and social care professionals, patients, people in the community and politicians regularly take stock to see whether the right sort of care is being delivered to mentally ill and emotionally disturbed people.
My hon. Friend has clearly explained the circumstances of his constituents, their adult daughter and their difficulty in securing help. Their case is tragic and he has asked, quite rightly, what our policy is for caring for mentally ill people and how we prevent people from falling through the net.
The Government fully recognise the burden carried by carers who look after sick relatives. I pay tribute to all their hard work and dedication in standing by so steadfastly members of their families who are mentally ill. It is not an easy task and, quite rightly, those carers look to the statutory and voluntary agencies for help. I should explain that, for some years, the Government have provided grant support to a number of voluntary organisations which, directly or indirectly, represent the interests of mentally ill people and their carers. If my hon. Friend would find it helpful, I can let him have the appropriate names and addresses so that his constituents can get in touch with them for support and advice.
As the House will know, we have a large agenda before us. About one person in 10 suffers from some form of mental illness in the course of a year and mental illness is as common as heart disease and perhaps three times as common as cancer. About seven people in 1,000 of the population will suffer from schizophrenia at some point in their lives and currently it affects an estimated quarter of a million people.
So what is our policy? Quite simply, it is to continue to encourage the development of locally based health and social services to meet the needs of people of all ages suffering from mental illness. The aim is to have a range of services that are local, comprehensive and sensible.
The components of such a service must be principally effective assessment of need; community mental health


teams supporting mentally ill people in their own homes; an adequate range of day care services; adequate short and long-term hospital provision; and an adequate range of health and local authority respite services.
This policy, which is to be taken forward within the general framework of responsibilities for community care can be delivered successfully only by health and local authorities working together, in collaboration with the relevant voluntary organisations and the private sector.
The NHS's responsibilities for providing continuing care have been clearly set out in the White Paper "Caring For People" and were strongly reiterated last year in letters to regional health authorities and social service departments from the deputy chief executive of the NHS management executive and the chief inspector of social services. The form that this continuing care should take and the number of places provided must be a matter for local decision. While central Government can set the scene and establish a framework for mental illness and community care policies, it is the local agencies which will need to turn those intentions into firm positive action for the benefit of patients and carers.
Of course, at the heart of 'all concerns are those users and carers mentioned by my hon. Friend. The first key component for community care identified in the White Paper was services that respond flexibly and sensitively to the needs of individuals and carers. The second key component was to ensure that service providers make practical support for carers a high priority. To do that, we must all listen closely to what users and carers have to say about the services they receive so that we can learn from their experiences and develop more appropriate provision of care. I believe that we are doing this and today's debate reflects that, but, to encourage the process still further, we are setting up a national users and carers group with representatives from a wide range of clients, including mentally ill people as well as the appropriate voluntary organisations.
The purpose of the group will be to give direct regular feedback to Ministers through the Department about the experience of care in the community, particularly during the early period of the new arrangements. Its remit will cover both health and social services and we will expect to hear about services provided by the independent sector as well as the statutory authorities.
The group would be able to give the centre some first-hand feedback about what is going on regionally and what the effects are for particular user groups. It could share experiences and advise us on how services can be made more responsive and how systems and management can be improved. It could also act as a focal point for advice and good practice on how service users and carers might be more effectively involved in the planning and development of community care services. It will give us at the centre a much more direct feel of how we can continue to go about achieving the central aim of community care.
None of this can be achieved without the right level of resources and the Government are firmly committed to improving services for mentally ill people. This is demonstrated by the fact that, including secure provision, about £2 billion is being spent each year on mental illness. That figure, although impressive, does not tell the whole story, because it does not show the 37 per cent. increase in

real terms in gross expenditure on hospital and community health services since 1979 and an 86 per cent. increase in real terms in gross expenditure on local authority social services. Those figures demonstrate quite clearly that the Government are committed to policies for the mentall ill.
However, we recognise that the provision of services can be patchy and that is why we have taken a number of initiatives to improve the overall level of care. These include the introduction of the care programme approach in April 1991, two years in advance of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, introducing the idea of needs assessment and care management to the care of mentally ill people.
Based on the best professional practice, it is intended to cover all patients being considered for discharge from mental illness hospitals and all new patients accepted by the specialist psychiatric services. The needs of each patient, both for continuing health and social care and for accommodation, should be systematically assessed and effective systems put in place for ensuring that agreed health and, where necessary, social care services are provided to those patients who can be treated in the community. Explicit, individually tailored care programmes are drawn up and a key worker is identified to keep in close touch with the patient and to ensure that the agreed package of health and social care is being delivered.
We have also introduced the mental illness specific grant available to local authorities which has brought about significant improvements in the social care provided to people with a mental illness In 1993–94, the grant will be £34 million in support of expenditure of some £47 million by local authorities.
In addition, we have helped to raise the awareness of mental health and push forward action by the relevant agencies by including it as one of the five key areas in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. The main objective is to reduce ill-health and death caused by mental illness and there are specific targets to reduce suicide by 15 per cent. in the national rate and 33 per cent. for the severely mentally ill by the year 2000.
We have recently issued a mental illness handbook to put flesh on the bones of the White Paper and to help health and local authorities develop local strategies for reducing mortality and morbidity caused by mental illness. Although the information in the handbook is meant to be illustrative rather than prescriptive, it represents the most detailed description we have ever set out of what we would like to see developed in the field and how. As such, it is likely to be a major resource for many years to come.
There is a particular task in "The Health of the Nation" relating to mentally disordered offenders. Health authorities are required to include a range of secure and non-secure services for this group in their strategic and purchasing plans. The development of those plans will be influenced by the work of the Department of Health/ Home Office review of services for mentally disordered offenders—the so-called Reed review to which my hon. Friend referred, whose final report we published last November.
We are still considering many recommendations made during the review, but we have already endorsed a set of principles for the future provision of services and we have greatly increased the amount of capital available centrally for medium secure services—from £3 million in 1991–92 to £17 million in 1992–93 and £22 million next year. We are also awaiting the outcome of the working groups, under


the chairmanship of Dr. John Reed, which are looking at personality disorders and high security services. That work will be completed shortly.
To help in following up the review and in maintaining the good co-operation between agencies which it has fostered, we have established a new advisory committee on mentally disordered offenders. That committee is being formed for three years and, among other things, it will advise the Department of Health and the Home Office on follow-up action to the review.
Clearly, there is always a lot more that we could do. We still need to unlock resources from the old long-stay institutions in developing services further in the community and, to help tackle this, we set up a mental health task force in 1992 to help build up a balanced range of locally based services.
Also, it is apparent that implementation of the care programme approach is patchy and people can fall through the net. There is the problem of a small minority of mentally ill people who refuse to participate voluntarily in their care programmes. The Government are very concerned about the position of patients who slip through the net of community care and this is why we are taking a fresh look at the existing legal powers and considering whether changes are needed to the mental health legislation. A team has been set up to take this forward and a report will be made in the summer.
One point that is not always appreciated is that the Mental Health Act allows a patient to be detained in the interests of his or her own health. It is not necessary to show that they represent a danger to themselves or others. We are considering further changes to the Mental Health Act code of practice that are aimed at removing any misunderstanding about the admission criteria under the Act.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend and I congratulate him on raising the topic. It is an unfortunate fact that everyone is aware of acute services and hospital services and the problems that they are in, but fewer people are aware, or are willing to be aware, of the problems of mental health. Too many people would like to brush it under the carpet, but there is an enormous need and one which must be met. We are determined to do that.
I hope that I have been able to show what measures we are already taking to provide a high-quality service for mentally ill people and the resources that we are putting in to support this. We will continue to do all that we can to make improvements and to ensure that mental illness is given a high priority by both health and local authorities.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

Mr. Harry Cohen: I am pleased to have this Adjournment debate on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The treaty was signed in 1968 and we ratified it in 1970. Now, 155 member states are signatories to it. It is reviewed every five years and there is a major re-examination after 25 years.
That major re-examination is due in 1995. There are preparatory meetings going on ahead of that re-examination conference and the first one takes place on 10 to 14 May in New York this year. That is one of the reasons why I have called for a debate on this subject. We must start work for significant progress not only at the preparatory meeting but at the 1995 conference. The 1990 review conference failed because it did not reach a consensus on the final document. The main area of contention was nuclear testing. I shall say more about that later. However, we cannot afford another failure in the treaty as we approached 1995.
The use of nuclear weapons is the ultimate amorality. The examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the mass slaughter there should never be forgotten. Nuclear proliferation greatly increases the risk of nuclear war, but it is not just those states on the verge of getting nuclear weapons but the nuclear weapon states themselves that are the cause of worry. In the late 1980s, there were about 60,000 nuclear weapons in the world.
There were some achievements, some arms agreements, which we all welcomed. We welcome the intermediate nuclear force and strategic arms reduction agreements between the then Soviet Union and the United States. However, those agreements are quite small when set against the number of nuclear weapons to which I have referred. START is not due to be completed until 1998, but the nuclear warheads covered by that agreement do not have to be destroyed—merely withdrawn or stored. There is evidence that some of them are simply being recycled.
Some of the threshold states are already over the threshold for nuclear weapons. Israel is seemingly an undeclared nuclear weapon state, but I have seen reports that it has 200 to 300 nuclear weapons. In a recent statement, President De Klerk said that South Africa had made six nuclear weapons. The odds are that South Africa has made many more than that. India, Pakistan, Brazil and Argentina have probably made nuclear weapons and we know that Iran and Iraq have been trying to make them. The threshold states have probably increased their capacity to make such weapons because of the biggest event in recent years—the disintegration of the Soviet Union. That has created a series of new nuclear weapon states and has resulted in the selling of expertise and materials to states such as Iran and Iraq.
Events in North Korea have also prompted me to seek this debate. On 11 March, North Korea announced that it was leaving the non-proliferation treaty. That is an appalling precedent and we should urge action to stop Korea doing so. It signed the NPT in 1985, but it has been treated as an outcast, put out in the cold. As a result, North Korea does not respond to diplomatic and other pressures. It was silly to stop all aid and diplomatic recognition, because it has meant that we cannot use them to apply pressure. We should consider restoration of


assistance or at least welcome North Korea back to the international fold. However, we should certainly not do that as a response to North Korea leaving the treaty.
North Korea has said that it does not believe the statement by the United States that it withdrew all its nuclear weapons from South Korea in 1991. There should be a detailed inspection to make sure that those weapons were withdrawn and North Korea should be invited to take part. We must exert maximum diplomatic pressure to persuade North Korea not to withdraw from the NPT. A stick and carrot approach should be used; there has been so much stick that we now need a little bit of carrot.
The non-proliferation treaty was very much a bargain between the nuclear weapons states and the non-nuclear weapon states. That was well described by Lord Plant of Highfield, when he said:
the NPT involved a bargain under which they"—
that is, the non-nuclear weapon states—
would forfeit their rights to acquire nuclear weapons in return for the nuclear weapon states engaging in a process of nuclear disarmament."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 March 1993; Vol. 544, c. 383.]
That was part of the bargain, but there are four other aspects.
Arms control negotiations to reduce the world's stock of arms and to end nuclear testing were expected of the nuclear weapon states. Security assurances for the protection of the non-nuclear weapon states against attack by nuclear weapons have been given. Free access to nuclear power for peaceful purposes was also expected. The non-nuclear weapon states thought that they were receiving those benefits under the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. There is a clear perception that the nuclear weapon states have reneged on those agreements, are reluctant to give up their nuclear weapons and have not done enough to disarm.
I mentioned the INF and START agreements, but there has been little control of nuclear weapons. Proliferation must be viewed in two ways. There is horizontal proliferation, the spread of weapons to new states, and vertical proliferation, which is a qualitative and quantitative increase in the possesion, manufacture or deployment by an individual state. In terms of vertical proliferation, Britain comes off badly: Trident is a blatant example. Trident has 512 targets, whereas Polaris had 64. That is an eightfold increase. It is capable of 4,000 Hiroshimas, whereas Polaris was capable of 400. That is an appalling example of proliferation.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Is it still Labour policy to continue with the Trident submarines but not to arm them?

Mr. Cohen: Labour's policy is well known. My view is that there is an overwhelming case for getting rid of Trident.
Another example of vertical proliferation in Britain is the thermal oxide reprocessing plant programme for a huge increase in the production of plutonium.
When does the United Kingdom propose to become involved in arms control and disarmament negotiations? The non-nuclear weapon states have a right to ask that, because there has been no such involvement over the 14

years of this Government. That is a scandal. Britain is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, of which article VI is a key component. It states:
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
That is what Britain signed up for, and if we cannot go all the way towards eliminating nuclear weapons, we should at least enter negotiations leading towards that goal. By any standards, we are clearly in breach of article VI and it seems that the United Kingdom has reneged.
I shall now deal with nuclear testing. In the other place on 11 March, the Minister's dad, Lord Hailsham, said that he tried to achieve a test ban in 1963. I congratulate him on that excellent example that he set for his son. The last treaty meeting in 1990 foundered on the issue of nuclear testing, but a comprehensive test ban treaty could be a vital cap on the nuclear arms race.
The preamble to the NPT about a comprehensive test ban states:
Recalling the determination expressed by the Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and underwater in its preamble to seek to achieve the discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all time and to continue negotiations to this end.
That was the aim of the treaty.
Britain has not participated since 1980 in the negotiations referred to in this preamble. At the United Nations, Britain blocked resolutions on a partial test ban treaty as recently as 1991. That is. a far cry from the Government's attitude in 1980, when the defence estimates stated:
We believe that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would increase tensions, putting at risk international security and stability. The Non Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in August will be an important event in the continuing search to combine non-proliferation objectives with the widespread desire of nations to enjoy the benefits of nuclear power. Non-proliferation would also be served by a comprehensive ban on testing nuclear weapons, on which we have been negotiating with the United States and the Soviet Union.
Clearly, in 1980 the Government favoured a comprehensive test ban treaty. Since then, they have retreated from that position in a mealy-mouthed fashion, talking of a step-by-step approach. What is the first step; what is the last step; what are the steps in between?
The United States has passed new laws restricting the number of tests. They do not amount to a complete test ban, but the United States seeks such a ban after 30 September 1996 unless a foreign state conducts such tests thereafter. President Clinton is on record as supporting moves toward a ban.
The Russians have put a moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and have since extended it. France's moratorium is coming up for review. So the conditions are favourable for the British Government to support a comprehensive test ban treaty and I urge them to do so.
An excellent paper on security assurances for non-nuclear weapons powers has been produced by the International Security Information Service, ISIS. The paper states:
Britain undertakes not to use nuclear weapons against such states except in the case of an attack on the United


Kingdom, its dependent territories, its armed forces or its allies by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear weapons state.
This shows that Britain's position is not even as good as the former Soviet Union's:
Our country declares that the Soviet Union will never use nuclear weapons against those States which renounce the production and acquisition of such weapons and do not have them on their territories.
The Soviet Union also added an obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons.
Even China's position was better than our own:
All the nuclear countries, particularly the super Powers that possess nuclear weapons in large quantities, should immediately undertake not to resort to the threat or use of nuclear weapons against the non-nuclear countries in nuclear-free zones. China is not only ready to undertake this commitment but wishes to reiterate that at no time and in no circumstances will it be the first to use nuclear weapons.
So we must improve our security assurances. We cannot give open-ended commitments—they would be dangerous—but we can still improve our assurances to the non-nuclear states.
As for free access to nuclear power for peaceful purposes, the perception of the non-nuclear states is that the nuclear states are reneging on their agreement. I have some sympathy with the non-nuclear weapon states on this point, because there is a link between civil and military use and a real fear that this use could spread. If that is the Government's position, they should be open about it and renegotiate this part of the bargain.
There is a great deal to which the Government could commit themselves. First, they should reform and strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency. That authority's current role is to monitor the use of nuclear materials, not the construction of nuclear weapons by other states. As a result, it monitors Germany and Japan for 60 per cent. of its time and Canada for another 10 per cent., the rest of it being divided between eastern and western Europe. That leaves little or no time for the third-world threshold states to which I have referred. That imbalance should be corrected.
The IAEA should have an increased budget, too. I know that the United Kingdom contributes £3·5 million already, but it is well worth giving the authority more resources to help it prevent proliferation. Its policing arm should be strengthened: comprehensive verification arrangements—satellite surveillance, open skies agreements, a seismological network to detect tests, a register of trade in arms and nuclear materials—must be put in place. The authority should have the power of effective inspection.
Hans Blix, director general of the IAEA, said on 21 September last year:
In the past year I have received with appreciation commitments by several States to open any site and any installation to Agency visits, regardless of whether these sites and installations are covered by safeguards. In some instances the agency has made use of such commitments. For confidence building they are of high value—provided that they are fully accepted in practice.
This means allowing the IAEA's operations to extend to military as well as civil production, and the Government have been reluctant to do that.
I hope that the United Kingdom will make the sort of commitment for which Hans Blix has asked. There should be perferably one body for controlling nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the spread of ballistic missiles, not a patchwork of organisations. It should have

powers to promote sanctions against states that are in breach of the rules. It should improve the safeguards for the non-nuclear weapon states and it should impose a global prohibition on nuclear testing.
We also need new agreements on fissile materials production cut-offs—at present the subject of a voluntary United Kingdom/IAEA Euratom safeguards agreement, which unfortunately allows the withdrawal of nuclear material for national security reasons. That loophole must be closed. In the 18 months to December 1987, the United Kingdom made five withdrawals on security grounds. In the 30 months to January 1990, there were 41 such withdrawals—an alarming increase.
We also need a plutonium cut-off agreement. There is no escaping the fact that the United Kingdom needs to make deep cuts and to involve itself in international negotiations for cuts in nuclear weapon numbers—but that should not be used as an excuse for procrastination.
Trident and the tactical air-to-surface missile should be cancelled if we are to achieve a good international agreement on non-proliferation. The United Kingdom seems stuck in the cold war posture still. The Secretary of State for Defence has made statements to that effect. Even Les Aspin, United States Defence Secretary, has said:
Some leaders are undeterred by the threat of retaliation, like Saddam Hussein.
Robert McNamara, the distinguished former Defence Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson, has said:
Others still believe that the threat to use nuclear weapons prevents conventional war … Accepting this argument means accepting the risk that, if deterrence fails, a nuclear exchange, which would destroy nations, may follow.
He has blown up, so speak, the argument that deterrence can still work and that it is enough to rely solely on deterrence.
Robert McNamara went on to argue for coercive action against states that do not agree with the nuclear non-proliferation arrangements. I do not agree. Iraq shows that, even if people are killed, dictators can remain in place. The Government have taken the coercive action option without considering what route they should take. The consensus route would be better and at least it should be tried.
I conclude by reading the report of Dr. Boutros Ghali, the United Nations Secretary-General, from 22 October last year. He said:
Now that reductions are occurring, a number of questions assume greater importance".
They are relevant to our Government.
How could envisioned cuts lead to even further reductions? When will the negotiating process be enlarged to include other nuclear-weapon States"—
Britain—
and will the parties, having already sharply curtailed their qualitative improvement programmes, finally agree to halt nuclear testing completely? The International community can aim for no less a goal than the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Achieving this goal may take some time. Nuclear technology cannot be disinvented; and there are a host of difficult questions—including issues of stability and verification—which must be weighed carefully. It is my belief, nevertheless, that the full array of hazards posed to humanity by these weapons cannot be adequately dealt with until we have crossed the threshold of the post-nuclear-weapon age. In this context, a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing would be a significant step leading to the goal of the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
The Government should set forth down that road.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate and on getting extra time for it. This is an important subject, which he has spent much time and energy pursuing since becoming a Member. His work and unswerving commitment to the cause of nuclear disarmament should be put on the record.
I approach the subject from the point of view of an unrepentant unilateral disarmer. I do not plan to change my view—any more than my hon. Friend plans to change his—which I have held since I was old enough to become a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and I am now a member of its national council. I say that because principle and consistency in politics are important.
We still have the capacity to destroy the world many times over. I have been reading about the horrors of the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many of the politicians who took that decision did not comprehend what a nuclear explosion was or the horror that would be meted out to the Japanese people. The bombs that were dropped on those two cities were mere fireworks compared with what is available now., They were tiny explosions compared with the current nuclear capability.
The arms race that developed at the start of the cold war in 1947 or 1948 and the development of the hydrogen bomb and subsequently of nuclear missiles by the Soviet Union, France, China and, we now know, a number of other countries has had a devastating effect on the entire world. That was predicated on the view that the Soviet Union was attempting to invade western Europe, and the United States' view that its duty was to contain the spread of communism anywhere around the world.
The United States adopted a policy of global encirclement of the Soviet Union from the Eisenhower period onwards. The United States still spends 5 to 6 per cent. of its gross national product on arms expenditure. The Soviet Union spent a similar, if not larger, proportion on arms expenditure. As a result, the United States has the biggest ever budget deficit in its history, which has had a knock-on effect on US policies on interest rates and has been largely paid for by low commodity prices in the third world. The third world has, in effect, paid for a large amount of the US arms budget.
The effect of the arms race on the Soviet economy and people was equally devastating. The Soviet system was never capable of meeting the basic needs of its population because of its expenditure on the arms trade. That was the major contributory factor to the break up of the Soviet Union. In a sense, both sides have spent themselves to a standstill on weapons of mass destruction. Although Britain has played a lesser role, it has been a significant and important one.
Technologies that are brilliant in their conception and operation were developed for an entirely negative purpose. Britain was involved in the original nuclear decisions and, to their shame, the 1949 Labour Government took part in the development of a British independent nuclear deterrent. In 1979, another Labour Government commissioned the Chevaline project. Both decisions were taken in secret and I suspect that neither of those Cabinets was informed. God knows what other schemes are being dreamed up by other Cabinets around the world as we speak.
We must ask ourselves a few important and serious questions. I have tried briefly to explain the results of the arms race, but was it ever necessary? What on earth are these nuclear weapons for and why are the Government so obsessed with the continued holding of nuclear weapons? We had the so-called independent British nuclear deterrent of the 1950s. We then had proliferation into the Polaris system from 1963 onwards—ironically, at the same time as a test ban treaty was being signed—which was followed by the Chevaline project, cruise and now the Trident missle system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton correctly pointed out, when completed, the four-boat Trident submarine fleet will have nuclear warheads capable of hitting 512 targets around the world at the same time. I ask the Minister, although I do not suppose that he will give a detailed answer, if any answer at all, where those weapons are targeted. Are they targeted on British investments in Russia, Prague, Germany or Hungary, or on Cuba, the United States, France, Africa or Latin America? With a four-boat Trident submarine capability located in the right place, we have the ability to hit targets on any continent in the world. What are these weapons for, and whom are they targeted against?
I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton made earlier: a nuclear war is an unwinnable scenario. The Chernobyl explosion, small as it was in the litany of nuclear explosions, succeeded in devastating several hundred square miles of the Ukraine, creating a nuclear pollution cloud all over northern Europe and causing serious pollution and ultimately cancers throughout northern Europe. That was a minor explosion. Think of the consequences of any nuclear exchange. A nuclear exchange is likely to kill as many people from the side that launched it as the side that received it. With a sense of humour, the NATO generals labelled the whole thing as MAD—mutually assured destruction.
We must approach the issue from the point of view that nuclear weapons are immoral. I believe that it is unjust to hold them; it is unjust to consider their use in any way, and we should work for their total elimination. I would approach their total elimination from the standpoint of renouncing entirely the use of nuclear weapons, decommissioning the weapons we have and cancelling the Trident programme. I realise that the last would be difficult. However, by cancelling the Trident programme, we would ultimately free many skilled scientists in British industry to work on more socially useful projects. That would also redirect at least £10 billion of expenditure yet to be spent on the construction of the fleet and, ultimately, an additional £10 billion at least which would be involved in the refitting programmes of those vessels during their expected lifetimes. However, we must also consider the nuclear proliferation treaty and the worldwide proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Nigel Evans: While other countries possess nuclear weapons, surely this country would be absolutely insane to give away our nuclear defences unilaterally. Does the hon. Member accept that, as nuclear weapons have not been used since the second world war, that shows the deterrent factor of such weapons and that they have proved their worth?

Mr. Corbyn: Nuclear weapons were very nearly used in Korea. Only the intervention of President Eisenhower


stopped those weapons being used in Korea. His generals were very happy to use them. They would have been used by an allied force, including British, Australian, New Zealand and United States forces, who would have been fried alive because they would have been used against targets fairly close to Korea, as I understand it from Eisenhower's memoirs and from other books written about that period.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) asked a simple question. He asked whether it would be unwise of Britain to give up the potential use of nuclear weapons while other countries have nuclear arms. Roughly 180 independent states are members of the United Nations, 90 per cent. of which do not have nuclear weapons or access to them. They are not covered by any nuclear defence arrangements. They manage to survive quite happily and they have not been threatened, precisely because they do not have nuclear weapons.
If we are to begin disarming, we must consider why we have nuclear weapons; what they are going to be used for; whom they are going to be used against; the effect on us of possessing them; and their potential use. From that point, we must consider the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
To make a nuclear bomb and create a nuclear explosion is not particularly difficult. A country with the ability to construct a nuclear power station can also construct a nuclear bomb. Unfortunately, that is not particularly difficult if a country has that, technology. A delivery system is slightly more difficult to produce. However, as we saw with the Iraqi use of Scud missiles during the Iran-Iraq war, it is possible to use fairly conventional rocketry to deliver nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Enola Gay, which dropped the initial bomb on Japan, was an ordinary, conventional bomber aircraft.
We must start from the point of view that it is too easy to make nuclear weapons. However, it is also important to try to stop their proliferation. Proliferation is possible through the use of nuclear power. It is important that we adhere to the United Nations treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton referred to the number of occasions when Governments, including the British Government, have refused access to the nuclear inspectorate. Presumably, the British Government refused access to examine British nuclear facilities because they consider them to be part of the nuclear missile programme, and they, therefore, do not want those things closely examined. I also believe that the expansion of our nuclear fleet to four Trident submarines, with the potential of 512 warheads, is a massive proliferation of nuclear weaponry and very much contrary to the spirit and letter of the non-proliferation treaty.
We know that many states now hold nuclear weapons, partly as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union, partly because of the recent admission by South Africa that it has a nuclear capability, and because of the virtually confirmed view that Israel, India and Pakistan also have the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons even if they have not yet done so—although we await confirmation of that. North Korea has also, unfortunately, withdrawn from the non-proliferation process.
I hope that every effort will be made to get North Korea back into the non-proliferation process and that the British and United States Governments will adhere seriously to the NPT. If that does not happen, with regional instability in many places, the tactical use of

battlefield nuclear weapons will be countenanced. It will then be felt that there is a defence through the wider use of nuclear weapons. I do not believe that.
I believe that the NPT holds out some hope for the world. I want to see a world that is completely free of nuclear weapons. I want to see the removal of all nuclear weapons from this country. I also want the resources transferred to create a more peaceful world in which there is less instability. If we think about it, the basic causes of instability are arguments over resources and over the sharing of wealth, water and food.
We should dedicate ourselves not to a world in which we can kill ourselves many times over, but to a world in which we can feed ourselves. That is why the attitude of the British Government towards the NPT is at best to look at it rather askance and, in respect of the Trident programme, to go completely contrary to it. I hope that the Government will put what pressure they can on the North Korean Government to return to the NPT. I also hope that the British Government accept that they are in breach of the NPT through their development of nuclear weapons.
We need a world that is free of nuclear weapons and of the threat of nuclear weapons. The brilliance and science devoted to creating such weapons and their development should be put to some more useful purpose. When Einstien had completed his work, he realised what could happen to the process that he had discovered. He was horrified and wished that he had not discovered it. However, he discovered that process, and it exists, but there is no future in a world in which we are committed only to the ability to destroy ourselves many times over.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Corbyn: Yes, of course.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for his kind consent. I am also grateful to him and to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for participating in a debate of considerable importance.
I hope that the hon. Member for Leyton will accept that the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons is crucial for the maintenance of international security. The attention of the international community is, accordingly, being increasingly drawn to that requirement.
Non-proliferation is not a new objective. However, it has achieved a new prominence with the ending of the east-west confrontation. This is a useful occasion on which to set out some of the Government's thinking towards non-proliferation.
The cornerstone of our non-proliferation policy is the non-proliferation treaty, which provides the regime which is the basis for international consensus against proliferation. Under the treaty, the nuclear weapon states—ourselves, the United States, Russia, China and France—have committed themselves not to transfer nuclear weapons to other states and to work towards nuclear disarmament.
The other parties to the NPT, the non-nuclear weapons states, have undertaken not to acquire nuclear weapons


and to sign safeguard agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency so that their civil nuclear programmes may be monitored by agency inspectors.
Three major challenges lie ahead. The most immediate challenge is clearly to keep North Korea in the treaty and to persuade it to meet its legal obligations under the treaty. Both the hon. Member for Leyton and the hon. Member for Islington, North addressed that point, and I will refer to it later.
The second challenge is to achieve the indefinite extension of the NPT at the 1995 extension and review conference. That point was also addressed, most particularly by the hon. Member for Leyton. The third challenge, which is no less important, is to strengthen the verification of compliance with the NPT. That is the responsibility of the IAEA.
The treaty came into force in 1970 for a period of 25 years. The 1995 conference will decide by how long and not whether it should be extended. As a co-depositary of the NPT with the United States and Russia, we are already working for an indefinite extension of the treaty in 1995. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Member for Leyton. Many states have already pledged themselves to support that goal, and we will do our utmost to ensure that there is general support for that policy objective.
With 155 states parties to it, the NPT is approaching universality of membership, but there are still 34 states, some of them nuclear threshold states, that are not party to the treaty. A further objective of the policy must therefore be to work to increase the number of states that are parties to the treaty. Good progress is being made in that respect, with, for example, the accession to the treaty of two of the remaining nuclear states, China and France.
Another aspect is verification of compliance with the treaty. The House will know that Iraq graphically demonstrated the problem. It is now clear that, despite being a party to the NPT and despite being subject to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, Iraq made considerable progress in developing a covert military nuclear programme. We must therefore work to strengthen the safeguards regime administered by the IAEA.
The regime has recently been strengthened by a reaffirmation of the right of the IAEA to conduct special inspections of undeclared but suspect sites. It is necessary that that right is upheld in the case of North Korea. That point brings me to the case of North Korea, which has been highlighted by the hon. Members for Leyton and for Islington, North.
North Korea has been a party to the NPT since 1985. Early in 1992, it signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and inspectors of the agency have conducted six inspections since then. The agency has requested access to two undeclared sites which, on good evidence, it believes to be used for nuclear purposes. The Government of North Korea have refused to grant access to those sites. As the House will know, that led to a resolution of the agency's board of governors on 25 February which called on the Government of North Korea to grant access by 25 March at the latest. The Government of North Korea have refused to do so.
At a further meeting which concluded yesterday, the board passed a resolution referring North Korea's

non-compliance with its safeguards agreements to the Security Council of the United Nations, as it was obliged to do under article XII(c) of the agency's statute, and in accordance with article 19 of the safeguards agreement signed by North Korea. We voted for that resolution and we fully support it. We shall now work with fellow Security Council members and others to find a solution to the problem.
Since the non-compliance with the safeguard agreements, there has been another serious development of which the House is aware. On 12 March, the Government of North Korea informed the president of the Security Council of their intention to withdraw from the treaty. It is true that, under article 10 of the treaty, a state has the right to withdraw, but it is required to give the Security Council and others three months' notice of that intention and to state the extraordinary events relating to the subject matter of the treaty which it regards as having jeopardised its supreme interest. We do not believe that that proviso has been satisfied.
The action of the North Korean Government is, I am glad to say, unprecedented. It requires a firm but measured response by all the states concerned to uphold the non-proliferation regime. The objective of the international community is to find a way to persuade North Korea to change its mind, although not at the expense of weakening the NPT or the agency safeguards. In any event—I accept that this is small consolation—North Korea remains bound by its safeguard agreements with the agency for at least three months.
In a joint statement yesterday, 1 April, we and the other co-depositories of the treaty expressed regret and concern about the announcement by the North Korean Government. We have urged them to retract it and to comply with their safeguard obligations, which remain in force for the time being. We have expressed strong support for the efforts of the IAEA to implement its safeguard agreements with the Government of North Korea.
Before I go into the detail of the argument about testing, I intend to make a point that is not always kept in mind by hon. Members who speak about a comprehensive test ban treaty. In many substantive respects, a comprehensive test ban treaty would add little to non-proliferation policy. The NPT prohibits the acquisition and development of nuclear weaponry. By definition, one can test a weapon only if one has acquired it. In respect of non-nuclear weapon states, there would already have been a breach of the NPT if there were testing.
One can judge the strength of that proposition by considering what we know about South Africa or what we judge to be the case of Iraq. The South African Government have said that they did not carry out a test, although they developed nuclear weapons. We have no evidence to dispute the truth of that statement. In the case of Iraq, I am not aware of any evidence of testing. My point is that, in one sense, a comprehensive test ban treaty would not be a substantial and additional safeguard to the regime put in place by the NPT.
I am arguing not that such a treaty would be irrelevant, but that one should recognise that the NPT provides a more substantial barrier to proliferation than a test ban treaty could.

Mr. Cohen: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is fair about this, and that he is signifying agreement. The point is that one can test only if one has a weapon or a developing weapon. Unless one is a nuclear state, one is almost certainly going to be in breach of the NPT before one is in breach of a comprehensive test ban treaty.

Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that a great deal of the fallout and pollution in the atmosphere which have developed over the past 30 years has been the result of atmospheric testing? Although there is a different problem with underground testing, there is still a pollution problem. Although I understand and fundamentally agree with the point that there is a difference between non-proliferation and testing, I believe that testing should be stopped anyway because it can encourage proliferation and because it causes pollution.

Mr. Hogg: It is obviously true that atmospheric testing is polluting and it is good that such testing has been prohibited by international agreement. I do not think that the level of pollution from western tests underground has been such as to cause substantial concern. However, that is not an aspect of the matter on which I have come to speak this morning. Before giving a considered answer to that question, I should need to consider the material a little more clearly.
There have been two previous attempts to negotiate a comprehensive test ban. The first culminated in the partial test ban treaty of 1963, which limited signatories to testing underground—that was the treaty to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred and which my right hon. and noble Friend the former Lord Chancellor had a role in negotiating.

Mr. Cohen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's dad.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, he is colloquially referred to as my dad. I was preserving the customary civilities of this place.
The Geneva negotiations between 1977 and 1980 were the second attempt. Those earlier efforts to achieve a comprehensive test ban were conducted under the shadow of the cold war.
As we all know and welcome, the present situation is very different. The arms race has gone into reverse. The strategic arms reduction talks and agreements between the United States and Russia have resulted in a reduction of deployed strategic weapons to around one third of the 1978 total. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leyton that the reductions have been insignificant; they are substantial.
There have also been wholesale withdrawals of tactical nuclear weapons—a process in which the United Kingdom has played a significant part. Again, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Leyton, who suggested that the United Kingdom Government had not made a significant contribution to disarmament. The facts do not support that argument. As he will know, we have made substantial reductions in our sub-strategic capacity. For example, we have ended the deployment of Lance missiles and of nuclear artillery in Europe, we have eliminated our maritime tactical nuclear capacity and we have reduced by 50 per cent. the number of free-fall nuclear bombs, which is a substantial contribution.
Also, we will keep the number of our strategic weapons under review. However, it is also important to bear in mind the fact that, notwithstanding the reductions under START, the number of nuclear weapons possessed by the United Kingdom is but a fraction of those possessed by other states. While the proportion becomes larger with the implementation of START, it is but a small proportion of the whole.
The Government's view is that we need to retain nuclear weapons, albeit in reduced numbers, and we need to ensure that they are safe. We must therefore review the case for testing against that requirement. It is also true that a comprehensive test ban treaty has remained the British Government's long-term objective. In concert with other nuclear countries, we are reflecting whether it might be possible to bring forward that long-term objective or to abbreviate the timetable in some other way.
I can make no statement to the House other than to say that there has been a change in the international climate. Our long-term objective has been to subscribe to a comprehensive test ban treaty and we must now consider whether we can move more rapidly to the attainment of that policy.
We have considered an important issue of policy and I hope that what I have been able to tell the House has gone some way to reassure Opposition Members, although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Islington, North starts from propositions which he knows that I cannot accept—as does his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton. While I may be able to reassure both of them about specific questions that they raised, I recognise that our interpretation of the need to retain nuclear weapons is quite different.

Mr. Corbyn: You will come round to it.

Mr. Hogg: I rather doubt it.

Ferry Services (Spain)

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I appreciate the chance of this debate and the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will reply to it. I appreciate that he must be busy trying to sort out the implications of the rail strike. I should also start by declaring my interest, as I am the parliamentary adviser to the Baltic Exchange.
The subject of this debate is most serious. In a nutshell, a British company, which is out there trying to win for Britain, is having the utmost difficulty establishing a ferry service between Spain and Morocco, which I believe is contrary to the treaty of Rome.
The outcome is being watched closely by the City of London, which is the centre of world trade and especially world maritime trade. Its many institutions thrive in that central position and provide valuable invisible exports for this country. They include the Baltic Exchange and all the dry cargo broking that goes with it and the commodity traders who proliferate in London and bankers who proliferate even more. We must come up with a satisfactory response to the problem, because it is essential for London to remain the centre of world trade and for us to be seen to be dealing with the issue fairly.
I mentioned the City's invisible earnings; shipping earns about £3·4 billion for this country, the Baltic Exchange just under £1 billion, and last year Lloyd's Register apparently earned £33 million. The legal profession, which provides services for overseas clients, is believed to have earned more than £100 million and other institutions such as Lloyd's and various management and ship-owning companies must also be considered. The impact of such an issue on all those different types of companies and the confidence that it will engender in the City is tremendous.
Shipping is an international business and it is one of the few businesses in which a genuine free market and free flow of trade still exist. The quid pro quo is that the players in that free market expect fair play and a fair deal when striking bargains.
Cenargo, the British company at the centre of the issue, is one of the success stories of the 1980s. My hon. Friend may recall that it came to prominence in the early 1980s in the aftermath of the Falklands war, when the Ministry of Defence granted it the contract to take all the materials to the Falkland islands to build the new runway.
The company was founded by Mr. Michael Hendry in 1979. While P and O is the largest shipping company in Britain, Cenargo is now the largest private shipping company. It was recently described by Fairplaymagazine as a one-man enterprise zone. It was originally a specialist roll on/roll off ferry company, and runs ferry services in, for example, the Irish sea. Over the years, it has grown into a diversified shipping group, with expertise in ferry management, broking and all aspects of shipping. Today, it runs 16 ships.
The company is run on old-fashioned principles—something which is rather rare in the 1990s. It is the type of company that insists that its superintendents maintain the engine rooms to the highest standard of cleanliness and that its officers wear uniform at meal times in port, and it

regards its ships and its staff as its assets. In this rather casual era, we can rightly be proud of a company that faces the future with optimism and sound finance.
As I said, the company has great expertise in running roll on/roll off ferries. Last year it carried out a feasibility study of the prospects of running a ferry service between Spain and Morocco. There are tremendous flows of immigration between north Africa and Spain and across the Mediterranean. Here was a British company which saw the opportunity that that presented and was determined to get out there and exploit it for all that it was worth.
The existing ferry services are run by a Spanish company between Almeria in Spain and Melilla, which is a Spanish enclave—that is the important point—in Morocco. Cenargo was invited by the Moroccan Government to establish a direct ferry service between southern Spain and Nadar in Morocco, some 15 miles down the coast from Melilla. Basically—and this highlights the problem—the Moroccan Government were fed up with arriving in the Spanish enclave and being ripped off by the locals before crossing the border into Morocco.
Cenargo decided to take up that invitation to run the ferry service. It positioned its ship the Rozel and was due to start the service on 26 April this year. As I understand the position, the service is being blocked by the Spanish maritime authorities, who have instructed the local port authority and local officials not to co-operate and to prevent the service from running out of Almeria.
That is a serious matter. Under Community law, Cenargo is quite entitled to operate the service. The regulation authorising it to do so is EC regulation 4055/86, which establishes the principle of freedom of movement for maritime services between member states and third countries. Those of us who have long been frustrated over the issue of cabotage regarded that measure as long overdue. There is now a free market inside Europe, but there is one restricting factor: certain countries are still entitled to have bilateral maritime arrangements, but the relevant article—article 4—is supposed to be phased out by 1 January 1993. The Spanish Government are a party to the agreement, but are not living up to their obligations under it.
Aware of the opportunity that was arising on 1 January this year, Cenargo decided to compete, and positioned its ship the Rozel, which can take about 1,400 passengers and 300 cars, and proposes to do a round trip between Spain and Morocco every day. The service is being run with local partners. In December 1992, the Spanish authorities were formally informed of the planned service. A month later, the Spanish merchant marine replied that the service was prohibited and instructed the port authorities not to co-operate. One can only speculate what that may mean and the real reasons behind it. There is an element of politics, I think. Being one of the newer members of the Community, Spain is perhaps not yet used to the concept of European co-operation and what we have seen is perhaps something of a knee jerking reaction to a successful entrepreneurial move by a British company. Moreover—although it may be inappropriate to say it—they may be blocking the way so that a Spanish company can come along shortly and compete.
Whatever the reason, this relatively small matter has momentous implications for the Community and poses a credibility problem for the Government to which I am sure they will rise. The Government have rightly fiercely


opposed protectionism and subsidy. They have spent years telling United Kingdom ship owners that their best hopes lie in free trade. It sometimes seems as though we are the only country which goes along with that principle. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what the Government intend to do to secure free access to the EC market.
Cenargo's first remedy is through the Spanish courts. I understand that there is a jurisdiction problem and those who have had any experience of Spanish courts will appreciate that there are always serious delays. If the matter went to the Spanish courts, the ferry service certainly would not start in April this year and it is questionable whether it would start in April next year.
The second remedy is to go to the Commission, which Cenargo has done. The Commission appears to have accepted the complaint, but the position is a little unclear. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify it when he replies. Again, of course, that remedy is a lengthy process.
The third remedy is the United Kingdom itself. I am aware that the Government have not been idle in the matter and I congratulate the Department on the way in which it has responded to the issue. I am also aware that there have been diplomatic moves. I understand that the Minister in the other place has had a meeting with the Spanish authorities, but there appears to be no sign that they intend to respond to the problem. Perhaps my hon. Friend could clarify that. There is a rumour, which I do not believe, that the Department accepts the Spanish position and recognises the Spanish bilateral agreement. I hope that my hon. Friend will deny that.
The impact of the problem on a small company like Cenargo is quite serious. It believed that it could rely on the EC regulation, but instead it will suffer huge financial losses. As a British company, it is entitled to expect member states to observe European Community law, especially that arising out of the treaty of Rome, as that does.
The problem shows the inadequacy of Spanish law in such cases. My hon. Friend may remember the Factortame case, when the English courts decided that they had power under EC law to stop the Government banning Spanish fishing boats operating in our waters under the British flag. There is a certain irony in the fact that that law is available in this country, but no such remedy is currently available in Spain.
It is a serious matter which will have serious consequences for British shipping. The House needs no reminding that the Government have told the industry many times that there will be no subsidy for British shipping, but the industry and the City are entitled to expect the Government's full-blooded support in such an outrageous situation. I hope that my hon. Friend will take robust action.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for giving the House the opportunity to debate this matter. My hon. Friend's interest in shipping matters goes back a long way—indeed, to when he and I first came to the House in 1983. He assiduously represents the interests of the Baltic Exchange and he maintains his interest in shipping matters generally.
I agree that the Cenargo International affair raises some important implications not only for the company, but for the whole future of shipping services within the Community. My hon. Friend was right to point out the slight irony that Spain had the closest interest in the Factortame case and the proceedings thereafter, because Spanish vessels were seeking to fish in United Kingdom waters. The British Government tried to take a view on the desirability of that practice in the context of jobs in the British fishing fleet.
Now, we are dealing with an issue which is just as important. I assure my hon. Friend that we take the matter seriously and we will try to resolve it as quickly and as directly as we can.
My hon. Friend set out the problem that Cenargo has encountered in trying to start a new service. I shall reiterate some of the major principles so that we are clear about the ground on which the Government are proceeding. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate Cenargo on the job that it does for Britain. I say that in terms of the earnings that it brings to the United Kingdom and of the standards that it adopts in running its shipping. I commend the company for its standards of safety. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it is much to be commended in a world where safety standards are not always what we would desire. Similarly, it is to be commended for the standard of service that it offers to its customers. Would that all shipping operations in Europe were conducted to the same high standards.
My hon. Friend observed that Cenargo has developed considerable expertise with roll on/roll off ferries. It has been seeking to embark on a new service between Almeria in southern Spain and Nador in Morocco.
I will not go over the background setting out how it came to try to start the service. Suffice it to say that my hon. Friend had the sense of it when he explained that there are two small Spanish enclaves on the north African coast, both surrounded entirely by the state of Morocco. One is Ceuta, which is opposite Gibraltar, and the other is Melilla about 15 miles north of Nador, which is the Moroccan port that Cenargo is seeking to gain entry to.
My hon. Friend is aware that there was a service from Marseilles to Nador. Until recently, on a heavily subsidised basis, it was carrying some of the traffic that the Moroccan authorities wanted to see in the port. I understand also that that service has recently been suspended. It is true that the authorities in Morocco are behind the general idea of the Cenargo service and want it to come to fruition.
My hon. Friend was right to say that EC regulation 4055/86 is the key regulation. It was adopted under the last-but-one United Kingdom presidency of the Community and it liberalised the freedom to provide international shipping services within the Community. My hon. Friend asked one or two questions about the United Kingdom's approach to the regulation and I will take this opportunity to remove any doubt that there may be, either in the minds of the members of the shipping community or in the minds of members of the Spanish Government, about the way in which we view the application of regulation 4055/86.
My hon. Friend was right that the provisions in the regulation were phased in over six years leading up to 1 January 1993. There were various derogations from the directive, which essentially—this is often the case with European legislation—allowed member states to bring


their national law into line with treaty obligations. It also allowed them to renegotiate any bilateral arrangements that were covered by the scope of the directive.
It is clear, however, that from 1 January 1993 all Community ship owners gain the right to operate freely between member states and between member states and third countries. That is precisely what Cenargo International is now attempting to do. The Government's view is that it is fully entitled so to do, to take advantage of the freedom that is conveyed to it under regulation 4055/86.
Sadly, the Spanish authorities have so far refused, as my hon. Friend said, to permit Cenargo to commence that service. They point to an agreement on maritime transport entered into in 1979 between Spain and Morocco, which governs ferry services between the two countries. However, as I have just said, regulation 4055 clearly states that previous bilateral agreements between member states and third countries should be discontinued or amended by 1 January 1993. That was precisely to ensure that the new single market rules were in place and working.
We understand that in any event—there is an irony here which will not be lost on my hon. Friend—the Moroccan authorities have waived the provision in the agreement on which the Spanish Government wish to rely. That is an interesting development. If the Moroccan Government insisted on the implementation of the previous bilateral arrangement, the Spanish Government could, presumably at least, point to that as the type of difficulty which they might have in implementing regulation 4055. But the Moroccan Government do not insist on the provisions of the 1979 bilateral agreement.
I make it clear to the House that we are drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the Spanish merchant marine ministry is in contravention of Spain's obligations under the regulation. The British Government wish to protect Cenargo's legitimate interests. The company has acted in the wholly justified belief that it was entitled to start its service from Almeria to Nador later this month. Indeed, it received a great deal of encouragement at a high level from the Moroccan Government. It also had support from the port management in Almeria.
The irony is that the authorities in Almeria recognise that the service would provide a considerable boost. That is where the previous service which operated from Marseilles to Nador is relevant. The demise of that service means that more business is available to the port of Almeria. Almeria is keen to diversify and boost its traffic levels. I understand that the relevant labour unions in Spain have also welcomed Cenargo's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South may not have been aware of that, but my information is that that is the case.
So, having identified the opportunity provided by EC liberalisation to launch a new service, Cenargo has invested substantial sums of money in the infrastructure of the new operation, as my hon. Friend well knows. It has set up joint venture companies, acquired premises and set up an expensive computer reservations system. It has employed a considerable number of staff. I reiterate that the company is entitled to do that under the terms of the directive, and has been since 1 January.
I accept with great regret that the company will incur substantial losses if the service cannot begin on time. My hon. Friend made a point about recovery through the courts. He is a lawyer of some distinction and he will know that ultimately those losses will be recoverable through the courts, certainly on the basis of the legal framework that I have outlined. He made a comment about the speed of process in Spain. He will forgive me if I do not personally add a gloss to that. Suffice it to say that I understand the strength of the argument that he makes.
Recovery of costs through the courts could take far longer than is commercially desirable. In the meantime, Cenargo has left a substantial amount of money dead. The money cannot be used. The company has been frustrated in providing the service.
It is bad enough to look at the impact on Cenargo, but my hon. Friend has done the House a service, because he has highlighted the wider, important issue of principle. This is all about what the liberalisation of shipping services was intended to achieve. The British Government have taken the view that liberalisation is one of the most important achievements of the Community. The Council of Ministers worked hard to create an effective competitive framework within which Community shipping services could develop to the benefit of both the industry and users. A failure to permit Cenargo to start its proposed service would undermine that important policy.
I am sure that Opposition Members would join my hon. Friend and me in asking what is a single market without precisely that sort of liberalisation and without precisely such permission being available to non-national companies to provide such a service within previous national boundaries. My hon. Friend is right to say that the principle of the single market is at issue in this matter.
We are aware of the Spanish concern that Cenargo's proposed service might lead to unwelcome competition to Spanish ferry services on the route to Melilla. As my hon. Friend has said, Melilla has a population of about 8,000. It is a crowded port and it relies on delays for its own survival. Such gives Mellila the vestigial economic sustenance that it requires. If traffic disappeared in favour of a far more direct and sensible route between Almeria and Nador that would cause concern in Melilla.
Liberalisation cannot succeed, however, if member states are allowed to ignore binding Community legislation simply because of inconvenient internal domestic considerations. From time to time, we all have great inconveniences visited on us in the name of the single market. Most hon. Members and most British people see that as one of the prices that we must pay for the opportunities that are gained by membership of that single market. We cannot have a situation in which member states are simply allowed to ignore binding Community obligations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be aware from my response that we take this matter seriously. I am sure that he will want to know what pressure we have brought to bear on the Spanish to comply with their Community commitments.
On 24 March, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport wrote to Señor Matutes, the European Commissioner for Transport to explain why the United Kingdom Government view this matter with such concern. We asked Señor Matutes to use his influence to persuade the Spanish Government to reconsider their policy. Failing a satisfactory and speedy resolution of the matter, my right


hon. Friend urged the Commissioner to institute infraction proceedings against Spain under the terms of article 169 of the treaty of Rome. We understand that the Commission has now agreed to initiate those proceedings.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the infraction process takes a great deal of time to complete. A number of steps are built into it, quite properly, at various stages to enable the parties to those proceedings to produce considered responses. I fear that we cannot look to that process to produce a quick result. A finding that Spain is in breach, however, would be of great assistance to Cenargo in the legal proceedings on which it would subsequently embark.
That is not the totality of the representations that Her Majesty's Government have made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also written to Mr. Borrell, who is his counterpart in the Spanish Government. The letter was delivered by our ambassador in Madrid and, in conveying that letter, our ambassador left the Spanish Government in no doubt about the significance that we attach to the matter. Our letter made it clear that the United Kingdom regards it as being of the highest importance that European Community member states fulfil their obligations to liberalise shipping services, in line with regulation 4055 and it specifically urges Mr. Borrell to intervene to permit Cenargo to proceed. I cannot tell my hon. Friend of the detail of any response to that letter, but I assure him that I will do my best to acquaint him with any subsequent developments on that front.
My hon. Friend referred to the intervention of my 'noble Friend the Minister for Shipping, who addressed the issue with his Spanish counterpart in the margins of the recent Transport Council. He has told me that he left his Spanish counterpart in no doubt whatever about his strength of feeling on the matter and, knowing my noble Friend as we both do, I imagine that there can be little doubt in the mind of the Spanish Government.
Incidentally, quite apart from parliamentary and ministerial colleagues, my officials also take every opportunity to make representations to their opposite numbers during normal contacts over other European Community shipping business. Our embassy in Rabat has been in close touch with senior officials in the Moroccan Ministry of Fisheries and Mercantile Marine and been assured of Morocco's support for Cenargo's proposed operation.
The House will be aware that within Europe there is the Council on Trans-European Networks, which is seeking to develop a network of European through routes, and such routes may be susceptible to funding on a Europewide basis. At a meeting in Brussels, the United Kingdom Government entered a reservation on Spain's suggested additions to the combined transport network to cover rail

and sea links at Spanish Mediterranean ports for onward shipment to north Africa. The essence of Her Majesty's Government's arguments on that occasion was that a Community network should obviously include facilities that are open to all European Community operators and not only to home country operators.
It is untenable that the Spanish Government should be trying to include in a European Community network plan routes that are described as part of the trans-European network, but which are to be open only to one national carrier. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that, in relation to the proposed Thames development, they propose to press that point strongly.
My hon. Friend has done the House a favour in allowing us to air the issue today. I hope that I have reassured him that we view the present situation with as much dismay as he does. My view, and that of my colleagues in the Department, is that Cenargo is fully entitled to expect to mount its new service without obstruction. That is just the kind of operation that Community legislation is designed to facilitate. There is every reason to suppose that it would bring substantial benefits to potential customers and to all those involved in providing the service.
We are disturbed that the problem has arisen. As I said earlier, the success of the Community depends on all member states working together, to agree effective legislation in the first place, and then implement it without discrimination or qualification. There can be no unilateral decision on whether to comply with the obligation that member states have undertaken.
The Government greatly value their relationship with Spain. We believe that the two countries' good relations have brought substantial mutual benefits in the past and can lead to more in the future. But we are concerned that an issue such as the Cenargo affair could throw that relationship off course. We believe that it is highly desirable that our two countries co-operate to the full over the many difficult transport issues that the Community faces. It would be extremely regrettable if that co-operation were to be impaired because of Spain's failure to meet its obligations over Cenargo's proposals.
I am pleased that the Commission has taken the first steps to rectify the situation. But, as I said earlier, infraction proceedings will not supply the quick remedy that Cenargo and its potential customers have a right to expect. My hon. Friend can be assured that the Government will continue to take every opportunity to bring about an early resolution to the problem and that we will continue to do so until the obstacles that Cenargo has encountered are removed.

Russia

1 pm

Mr. Ken Livingstone: It is surprising that time has not been found in the parliamentary agenda over the past two or three weeks to discuss the momentous events that have been taking place in Russia. Unless I missed something, there has been merely one question to the Prime Minister from a Conservative Back Bencher in the past week or so. That seems strange because, according to the press, the Government have been quite active in making their views known in private to the Government of President Yeltsin and in briefing the press about them. There seems to be some conflict between what the Government said at the start of the crisis and the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary in Germany.
I will examine the origins of the crisis. It is easy for it to be portrayed as a crisis involving men grasping for power, between the Speaker of the Russian Parliament, Mr. Khasbulatov, and President Yeltsin. As is usually the case in politics, serious economic disagreements are the basis of the political rows now shaking the Russian constitution. The west has much to answer for, because of the economic advice that it gives to Russia. Harvard economists such as Jeoffrey Sachs, brilliant academics who have never run anything in their lives—not a company or even a local authority—have popped up in Russia at President Yeltsin's right hand and pontificated about how easily and rapidly the old Soviet command economy could be turned into a model of western democracy and free markets. Perhaps it would have been better if President Yeltsin had sought advice from people who had experience of running industry or a free market rather than turning to those who have broadly taken an academic approach.
None of the economies of the western capitalist societies that we consider to be successful came into being by following the classic academic approach that what one might call the neo-liberal economists have been pushing on the Russian leadership. All the present successful capitalist societies grew up behind trade barriers with degrees of Government intervention and with massive, and in some cases amazing, levels of inward investment. None of them came into being by following a textbook example. Britain built its economy behind trade barriers and the benefits that come from holding an empire. To suggest that somehow we can transform the Soviet command economy into a replica of western democracy in two or three years, or in 500 days, as one Russian economist advised ex-President Gorbachev, is nonsense.
The best record of growth in the world economy over the past 15 years has been in the People's Republic of China. In that country there have been moves towards liberalisation and, after the best part of a decade and a half, 15 per cent. of Chinese GDP could be considered to be in the free market and independent of the centralised state economy.
China has been successful because while it allowed private enterprises to grow up, it also preserved its state industries. If those industries are closed down, where will the people who are thrown out of work find the money to buy the goods that people in the emerging private enterprises are trying to sell them? The contrast between the relative success of the Chinese economic reforms and the problems in Russia is striking. If the privatisation programme is proceeded with as western academics and

some western Governments urge, unemployment of 20 or 30 per cent. in Russia is likely, perhaps for the rest of the century. That will not be conducive to the green shoots of recovery emerging in Russia.
We know the debilitating effects of our small recession on our economy and unemployment; we know about people's caution and failure to spend because of fear. So the west should have given Russia and her leadership a range of advice and options, instead of which those who no longer have influence in the White House and in 10 Downing street. The people who advised Presidents Reagan and Bush and Mrs. Thatcher, and who have come close to bankrupting the British and American economies—and who have been booted out of those residences, are finding willing ears in the Kremlin, where they will doubtless successfully bankrupt the Russian economy.
Those in Russia who are paying close attention to the advice of the discredited western economists must be clearly told that those people are no longer listened to in the west: we are moving away from their lunatic free market approach. Even the British Government are moving away from it—and so are the Americans, following the defeat of President Bush and the election of President Clinton.
These are the issues around which the conflict really centres, although much of the British and western media have characterised that conflict as a simple power struggle in Russia. Boris Yeltsin is-pursuing what we in the west now consider a rather discredited economic philosophy, while the Russian Parliament is taking a line that we would consider close to Keynesian. Yet the western media denounce everyone in the Russian Parliament as either Stalinists or fascists, claiming that the whole problem is due to their attempt to win power by undermining President Yeltsin.
In fact, a major economic issue is at stake and we need to tell the Russian Government that they must make up their own mind. It is not up to the west to intervene or decide the outcome of events in Russia; the Russian people themselves must resolve their crisis, which is taking place on a huge scale.
The crisis is so vast that there is not the slightest chance of Britain, western Europe or even Japan being able to come up with the amount of foreign capital investment that would be required for the west to step in and save the Russian economy. The Russians will have to do that themselves and the aid coming from the west will have but a marginal impact on their decisions.
The coverage of the crisis by the western media has done the British people a grave disservice. There were some remarkable comments in the Financial Times on Wednesday 17 March, when a leading editorial headed "The Choice over Russia" offered this jolly advice to the Russian people:
The west may have to choose between an anarchy created by totalitarians and an autocracy run by democrats. This choice has to be made in favour of those committed to reforming Russia … Democracies must back even authoritarian rulers if the alternatives are worse.
That was the logic which led to the west supporting Franco decade after decade. How would we feel if we were on the receiving end of that sort of jolly advice? "Sorry, good people of Britain, the Government are not doing too well—a Labour Government might even be elected one day; the time has come to suspend Parliament and have a period of authoritarian rule."
We would call it dictatorship, and it is outrageous that well-off Financial Times editorial writers from the comfort of their Surrey mansions should pontificate in this way on the grim measures that the Russian people need to face. Those are the very sort of people who have done so well in recent years. Moreover, the popular press's depiction of events was even worse.
A remarkable amount of nonsense also appeared in much of the American press. Time said that Speaker Khasbulatov was very similar to Stalin because they both smoked pipes and came from the south. That is what passes for serious political analysis in Time, but it creates an impression and smears individuals. On Tuesday 16 March, The International Herald Tribune, in similar vein, said:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the economy has not caused the present crisis: While it is far from satisfactory"——
you can say that again, with the levels of unemployment—
We are witnessing an attempt by the old Communist nomenklatura, or ruling class, to recapture power and the privileges that went with it, while using the parlous state of the economy as a pretext.
Led by an ambitious adventurer, Ruslan Khasbulatov, the chairman of the unrepresentative body called the Congress of People's Deputies, it is trying to gain by parliamentary manoeuvring what it failed to acquire by military power in August 1991.
That is the most damaging smear. Boris Yeltsin was not the only person who stood on the tanks and faced down the attempted coup in 1991. Khasbulatov stood there with him and Members of the Russian Parliament overwhelmingly opposed that attempted coup. It is nonsense so to depict events.
The reality is that elements in the west see rich pickings in the Russian privatisation programme. The International Monetary Fund's proposals for the Russian economy are devastating. That huge document, produced two years ago, proposes that Russia should be a supplier of cheap energy—coal, gas and oil—to the world markets, which would benefit our own economic prospects quite dramatically, and writes off Russian industry rather than trying to modernise or save it.
The truth is that however backward much of Russian industry might be, the choice is between reforming and modernising it, keeping people in work and building on the economy or, as the IMF wants, letting it collapse and creating a massive pool of unemployment. The report's impact on the peoples not only of Russia but of western Europe and others who wish to trade with it is potentially disastrous. That is the key: whether we are here simply to encourage a massive privatisation in Russia which offers a few rich pickings to western financial interests or whether we are seriously trying to assist the Russian people in their choices about how to modernise their economy and develop decent standards of living.
The reality was quite clearly revealed in the initial response to Yeltsin's conflict with the Parliament. The Parliament is reflecting popular concern about the economy. It is saying that the privatisation programme is going too far too fast. How can we object? We in the west are telling the Russians that they should privatise their entire economy in the next two or three years. Between 1979 and today, the British Government managed, at best, to shift 10 per cent. of our GDP from the public to private sector. What would have happened if they had done that in one go? The market could not have sustained it. There has been a slow—not as slow as many of us would have

liked—shift in the economy, and even that has been difficult in many areas and has led to considerable complaints and objections. What we are proposing for the Russian people is something that we did not seek to do for ourselves when we had a Government quite capable of doing it.
The advice that has been given is disastrous for Russia. It has exacerbated the economic crisis that the Russian people face and reactionary elements in the west are advising President Yeltsin to be firm and to demolish the powers of the Russian Parliament and to go for rule by decree.
I gave notice yesterday of a specific question to which I should like an answer today. Precisely what was the advice of the British Government? Let us examine what appeared in the press. A very interesting article appeared in the Financial Times on 10 March which reported:
In particular Mr. Kohl has passed a query from Mr. Yeltsin asking for confirmation of western political support if he is forced to introduce emergency measures in Russia.
On 12 March, Martin Walker wrote in The Guardian:
In a message to the G7 leaders sent to Germany's Helmut Kohl, Boris Yeltsin has asked the west for a blank cheque, for a promise of continued political and economic support even if he has to bring back a Russian dictatorship, suspending parliament and ruling by decree.
That was followed by the kind of comments that I quoted earlier from the Financial Times.
I hope that the Minister will tell us what advice, formal or informal, was given by the British Government to President Yeltsin's Government and whether that reflects the more public comments from the Foreign Secretary in Germany on 29 March after Boris Yeltsin had been forced to back down by the opposition of the Russian Parliament and the Russian people. According to The Daily Telegraph of 30 March, the Foreign Secretary said:
'We are interested in helping Yeltsin the reformer,' Mr. Hurd said in a clear warning to the Russian President that Britain's support was not for the man but for his policies. 'As Yeltsin contemplates the possibilities of rule by Presidential decree, he might comfort himself with the thought that the end justified the means. But that was the mistake made 70 years ago by the Communists,' Mr. Hurd said in reference to the early years of the Russian revolution.
That is the correct position, but it is a variance from what appeared in the press based on the usual off-the-record briefings. I am glad that we have had this debate so that the Government can, in more than just off-the-record briefings, state precisely what their position is.
I believe that the Russian Parliament is an embryonic democracy which is strengthening itself. When I went to Russia just before Christmas, I was impressed by the number of parliamentarians who were determined to make it a proper democratic Parliament. If we are to offer President Yeltsin any advice, it should be that if he is unhappy with some elements in the Parliament who were elected before the democratisation process had gone as far as it has today, he should call fresh elections.
I believe that there should be a new mandate in Russia before dramatic measures are taken. That should be the advice. President Yeltsin should build on the Parliament, strengthen it and allow the Russian people to judge the record of the parliamentarians and the president. Let them have the choice of the ballot box and say whether they support the privatisation programme and Yeltsin's economic policies or the more Keynesian line emerging inside the Russian Parliament.
The way forward is to trust the Russian people, not for western Governments to conspire behind the scenes and call for the firm rule in Russia which would look suspiciously like the kind of policies that we saw in Chile under the Pinochet regime in respect of which the west played such a pitiful role, first in helping Pinochet to power and then in doing nothing to curtail his excesses.
We have a chance to help create a genuine and successful democracy in Russia. That can be achieved only if they build on the electoral system and renew the Parliament. It will not be achieved by setting the Parliament aside and having strong-man rule of the kind that we have seen across so much of the world to such disastrous effect in recent decades.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I am glad that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) has secured this debate. It is a useful opportunity for the House to reflect on the policies that we should adopt towards Russia and events within Russia as we now see them. However, I do not share the hon. Gentleman's surprise that neither the Government nor the Labour party have chosen Russia as a subject for prime-time debate. There are probably two reasons for that. First, in truth, events in Russia are very unpredictable and vary all the time. It is, therefore, very difficult to form a clear view of where Russia is going. Secondly—I share this thought with the hon. Gentleman—there is a limited amount that we can do either by assistance or by political pressure to influence the direction of the changes going on in Russia. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that those changes are essentially a matter for the Russian people and that all the decisions of substance must be taken in Russia by Russians. Although a debate would be interesting and significant, it is true that neither we nor our friends, by our policies, will make a profound difference to what will happen in Russia.
Our support for Yeltsin is support for someone whom we believe to be a reformer. We judge him to be committed to a number of important democratic and market-oriented principles. We believe that he seeks to make Russia a democratic market economy. We believe that he wants to establish an effective and accountable system of government. We believe that he wants to provide systems that safeguard human rights and civil liberties in Russia and we believe that he wants to curb inflation, to bring the budget under proper control, to implement land reform and to privatise large and small businesses. We believe that those policies are in the interests of Russia. That is why we support President Yeltsin. We also believe that those policies are in our own interests, in that if they are implemented Russia will be a very much more comfortable neighbour than it will be if contrary policies are implemented.
None the less, we watch with concern what is happening in Russia and especially in Moscow. We are reassured by the fact that President Yeltsin has not circumscribed anybody's civil liberties. We are reassured by the fact that President Yeltsin has not introduced presidential rule, as the text of his decree makes plain. He has consistently called for the Russian people to be given a chance to decide how they are to be governed.
The hon. Gentleman referred several times to the Congress in Moscow. I believe that he was unduly kind to the Congress. It is not right to equate the Congress in Moscow with a western-style parliament. The Congress is a hangover from the Communist regime established when President Gorbachev was in power and the members of the Congress were elected under that system. It is not in the least surprising that many of them retain many of the attitudes that were then the current political philosophy. The hon. Gentleman was unduly indulgent to the members of the Congress when he referred to the economic dispute between President Yeltsin and the Congress. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that Mr. Yeltsin's democratic credentials are more persuasive than those of his opponents in Congress. The President was popularly elected in June 1991 with 57 per cent. of the votes in a 74 per cent. turnout, a point which we should keep in mind. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the questions are for the Russians themselves to answer.
The hon. Gentleman asked what our attitude would be if President Yeltsin gathered more and more power to himself and took on the characteristics of an autocrat. The proper response must be that we support President Yeltsin because he has supported policies of economic and political reform. We should be deeply troubled by any departure from that approach. It is not possible to speculate about what we should say if he adopted policies which, at present, must be wholly hypothetical. One can honestly say that the further that Mr. Yeltsin moved away from the principles of economic and political reform, the less we would support him. One cannot go further than that because the question is wholly speculative. Our support for Yeltsin is in his capacity as a reformer and it follows that if he ceases to be a reformer our support will fall away. The extent of the withdrawal of that support depends on the nature of his policies—all else is speculation.
One must also deal with what the west can do to assist Russia and Yeltsin in the process of reform. There are two strands of thought. The first is political support for Yeltsin and the process of reform and the second is economic support.
On political support, it is important that we continue to emphasise that Russia is a welcome partner in the western community. By that, I mean that we wish to work with Russia for a co-ordination of policy and co-operation across a broad spectrum of issues. We are, therefore, seeking to establish institutional and personal links through visits and constant dialogue. It is not coincidence that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting the Russian Foreign Minister tonight. I had the opportunity, as part of the European Community troika, to go to Moscow last weekend. It is a process of trying to bind Russia into genuine discussion for the co-ordination of policy.
We welcome the positive way in which the Russian Government have worked with us and others within the United Nations Security Council. We want to thicken up those bilateral and multilateral contacts so that there is genuine harmony in policy making between Russia and her erstwhile opponents.
The hon. Member for Brent, East concentrated to a great extent on economic assistance. To some extent, I share his caution. I recognise that a profound change is being asked of Russia and it might be a degree of change that it cannot make, for the reasons that he outlined. There


is, however, a weakness in his argument and I ask him to reflect on the fact that the problem is not merely that Russian industry is in the public sector and is state owned—that is not fundamental—but that it is wholly uncompetitive. The Russians are producing stuff which cannot readily be sold in western markets. That is the essential problem and Russian efforts and, to some extent, our own, must focus on that.
It is difficult to see how that problem can be tackled unless there is a fundamental change in the structure of Russian industry, which is the argument underpinning the case for privatisation and inward investment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the close link that must exist between the two because inward investment—bringing in new technologies, management styles and means to identify markets—will not take place if those selfsame industries are retained within the state sector by Russia. Therefore, if Russian industry is to be capable of trading in world markets, huge inward investment will be required, and that will not take place if it remains in the public sector.
On the question of aid, I state my own belief that although aid has a part to play, it is not so important as trade. What Russia requires are markets. We must recognise that and make adjustments to the policies that we have been pursuing. The United Kingdom has always been on the liberal wing of the argument—both in terms of free trade generally and in terms of enhanced market penetration.
There are also difficulties of which we must take account. The hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well the anxiety felt in this country and in France about the imports of Russian fish. Leaving aside the merits of that argument——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but we must move to the next debate.

Volunteer Work

Sir John Wheeler: In every free nation, in every age, there is a tendency to dwell on the failings and shortcomings of society, usually at the expense of that which is good. One has only to look at the numerous stories in our media to gain the impression that thuggishness and criminal behaviour are the norm in this country. Yet it is the very fact that such activities are relatively rare that makes them so newsworthy. Paradoxically, their rarity leads us to believe that they are commonplace. But those activities in society that really are commonplace tend to be ignored. They do not get the recognition and prominence that they deserve.
It is pleasing, then, to have the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to pay tribute to the many millions of people in Britain who selflessly give up their time freely for the benefit of others. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that some 23 million people undertake some form of voluntary work each year. There are more than half a million organisations currently in this country whose existence depends largely on the generosity, time and good will of ordinary members of the public in providing help for a huge range of causes.
One need only look at some of the major charities in the United Kingdom to get an idea of the scope of the voluntary activity in this country today. Barnardos, for example, raises and spends more than £50 million each year on child care. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, through the seemingly unending efforts of its fund raisers, provides, at no cost to the taxpayer, a totally comprehensive sea rescue service which is the envy of the world. Looking around at our hospitals, our schools, our citizens advice bureaux, we see millions of people giving their time for no reward save that of knowing that in some way they are improving the lives of others.
I think that it is easy to take for granted this huge welter of voluntary activities going on every day. We talk all too often of the great pillars that hold up our society, yet too seldom do we recognise the strength of the voluntary sector as one of those pillars, quietly touching most people and forming an important link between the individual and his or her fellow citizen. It is not just the big charitable organisations that do that. Look at the network of voluntary associations that tie people into their neighbourhood. Look at the parent-teacher associations, look at the meals-on-wheels, look at the scouts and the guides.
Within the constituency of every hon. and right hon. Member there are many hundreds, if not thousands, of active voluntary organisations. We should not forget that many of them have a laudably symbiotic relationship with the state, the latter providing some of the funding and encouragement to enable the former to mobilise volunteers to fulfil much-needed caring roles. These, surely, are some of the finest examples of genuine partnerships between the public and the private sector. Within my constituency one only has to cite the work of the Terrence Higgins Trust in its efforts to provide education to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS and to care for those unfortunate enough to have contracted the virus. That is an excellent example of the state and private individuals working together for a common good. The funding that the Terrence Higgins


Trust receives from the Department of Health enables those volunteers to mobilise their skills to prevent the disastrous spread of this cruel disease.
I hope that, even in these times of financial hardship, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will urge his colleagues to continue to recognise the practical and financial benefits of investing in that form of voluntary organisation. Funding from the Department of Health and, for education in our prisons, from the Home Office, is just the sort of pump priming that is needed to unleash the reserves of voluntary effort and remove the burden of those activities from the shoulders of an already overburdened state. It would not make sense to cut what, to the Government, are relatively small amounts of money for such organisations, if the Government then have to pick up the increased bills through other governmental bodies, such as the Health Education Council or local authorities.
I said earlier that people undertake those tasks for no tangible reward, yet there is no harm in recognising occasionally those who do not actively seek any recognition for their work. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already hinted, in his Carlton club speech earlier this year, that the reform of the honours system is likely to lead to greater emphasis on rewarding those who give so much of themselves for the benefit of others. But he went further in that speech when he said:
We need, through the honours system and other networks of recognition and encouragement to give the volunteering movement extra support".
Well, I should like today to raise an issue that would provide simple and practical encouragement to many organisations. I refer to the concept of Good Samaritanism. In essence, Good Samaritanism is a term used to describe the encouragement of indivduals to lend support to those in distress while freeing them from the discouragement brought about by the threat of potential civil action if something should go wrong.
Let me illustrate the point with an example brought to my attention by the St. John Ambulance Brigade, itself one of the two foundations of the Order of St. John of which Her Majesty the Queen is the sovereign head. The St. John Ambulance Brigade does unstinting work, both in teaching people first aid and in providing trained first alders for public events. Indeed, many of the sporting events, fetes, and fairs that are enjoyed by millions of people throughout the country would not be possible without the wholly voluntary dedication of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. Last year, the brigade gave around 4 million hours of public duty. Its recent Breath of Life campaign gave some 100,000 people, free of charge, essential resuscitation information and techniques.
There is no doubt that the activities of the St. John Ambulance Brigade should be positively encouraged; yet in November 1988 it faced litigation in the High Court which signalled a serious threat to its activities. In brief, the bridgade had been providing first aid at a motor cycle scramble in Bedfordshire. During one race, a young man fell of his motor cycle and lay prone on the track. His father urged him from the sidelines to get back on his bike and finish the race, but he did not move. Members of St. John, having been unable to persuade the organisers to stop the race, went to his aid amid the noise and cacophony of the racing motor bikes. They asked him a series of basic questions to assess his state, one of which

was whether he could move his toes—a way of testing for back injury. His replies led them to believe that he could safely be moved, and they proceeded to do this. Afterwards it transpired that the boy had suffered back injuries, which he claimed had been aggravated by the action of the St. John Ambulance Brigade. The brigade was therefore sued and was forced to fight his action in the courts. The learned judge concluded that the members of the brigade had strictly followed the indications in its first aid booklet and hence the brigade could not be guilty of negligence.
In this case, despite winning in court, costs were not awarded to the brigade's insurance company, which I believe had to pay some £50,000 for its defence. The result has been, naturally, a hefty increase in the subsequent insurance premiums. But the needless cost was not the only worring aspect of the case. The learned judge made it clear that it was the strict adherence to the first aid booklet which saved the St. John ambulance men from being found guilty of negligence. The implication of this is that a first aider, in the heat of the moment, possibly in a life-or-death situation, is protected only if he or she, follows the text book to the letter.
At a time when the Prime Minister is seeking to encourage the greater involvement of people in the voluntary sector there seems here to be a positive and practical measure that can be used to remove a strong discouragement to certain forms of voluntary work.
In a number of states, both in Europe and America, there exists the legal concept of Good Samaritanism. I shall quote from the law of the state of Missouri in the United States of America. Its 1979 Act, entitled
An Act relating to the Civil liability of physicians and registered professional members rendering emergency care and assistance",
contains the following section:
Any other person who has been trained to provide first aid in a standard recognised training program may, without compensation, render emergency care or assistance to the level for which he or she has been trained, at the scene of an emergency or accident, and shall not be liable for civil damages for acts or omissions other than damages occasioned by gross negligence or by wilful or wanton acts or omissions by such person rendering such emergency care".
I believe that this country would benefit from an adapted version of that law. I have in mind a Bill of just two clauses, the first of which might say:
Any person who otherwise than for remuneration renders first aid or other personal care or assistance to a person injured or affected by any accident or emergency shall not incur thereby any civil liability save for gross negligence or wilful misconduct".
The second clause could state:
A person so acting shall be entitled to the benefit of the foregoing section whether or not he or she is qualified or trained in medicine, nursing or first aid".
Such an Act, were it to be promoted, would wipe away the discouragement that currently prevails in certain parts of the voluntary sector.
I think that there is no doubt that concern for one's neighbour and knowing how to save his or her life is a part of good citizenship. Good Samaritans acting sensibly should be encouraged and should be legally protected. I urge my hon. Friend to consider seriously the possibility of introducing or supporting Good Samaritan legislation along the lines that I have described. Millions of people undertake voluntary work and none of them seeks any reward. But, similarly, none of them relishes the thought of protracted and precarious legal wranglings when he or


she has acted responsibly and in good faith. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give me some reassurance when responding to the points that I have read.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) on obtaining this debate. He has raised an important subject in the House. I also thank him for his courtesy in telling me what would be the general line of his inquiry. I hope that my reply will be the better informed as a result of the courtesy that he has shown to me.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend put at the centre of his debate the St. John Ambulance Brigade. As someone who has taken part in motor sport, I understand the vital role that it plays in being there when it is needed. Perhaps all too often we take the service for granted because it is always there. One could hardly imagine a sporting occasion in Britain at which the brigade's smartly turned out uniforms and obvious awareness of what was happening were not evident. The brigade has become part of the furniture. The fact that my right hon Friend drew attention to that particular item of furniture is important.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I presume a moment of his time to put on the record the work that St. John Ambulance does in Fylde. Mr. Michael Wren Hilton and Mr. Steve Williams have singularly dedicated themselves to that work. I took advantage of the foreknowledge that my right hon. Friend gave me of the subject of the debate to ask Mr. Wren Hilton for his thoughts on the central issue at the heart of the problem. He shares with my right hon. Friend the anxiety of St. John members. He acknowledged the relationship between the problem and public liability insurance. I shall say a word about that in a moment.
My right hon. Friend was also right to mention the concept of Good Samaritanism. I hope that in my remarks I shall not pass by on the other side of the road by ignoring any of the points that he raised. That is the essence of volunteering. The volunteer is the person who does not pass by the problem. The volunteer is the person who says, "I see a problem. What can I do to help?"
The selfless actions of the St. John Ambulance Brigade are a clear demonstration that there is a boundless pot of innate decency among most people in our society and a willingness to give and to help. In his new year message, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister touched that chord. It is a positive chord to strike at a time when, as my right hon. Friend rightly said in his comments about thuggery and crime, we must perform an important balancing act. We must recognise that all is not wrong in our society. A great deal is right, but a great deal more could be done.
I wish to spend a few moments on the technicalities as we see them of indemnity insurance and some of the risk factors to which my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the House. I fully recognise the anxieties of the volunteers who render emergency assistance. They come forward in good faith and with the greatest care. Yet they could somehow find themselves the target of litigation. I understand and share that anxiety. But I hope that the House will understand that I am, sadly, not in a position to comment on the specific case to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention.
The subject is difficult and complicated, as my right hon. Friend said. It has many legal implications. It goes wider than health care and beyond my remit as the Minister with responsibility for the voluntary sector. I accept the responsibility as rapporteur, if I may use that term. I shall comment in a little more detail on some of the points that my right hon. Friend made, but I undertake to ensure that the other parts of government who should be listening to what he says are fully appraised of his arguments.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to the subject of insurance. The position of charities engaged in community care activities is no different from that of non-charitable bodies in regard to the risk of claims for negligence. The charity trustees or charity can protect themselves and their staff and volunteers by taking out appropriate public liability insurance. Although my right hon. Friend drew our attention to some of the problems that arise when that insurance is invoked, I checked to ensure that that type of cover was generally available. I can confirm to my right hon. Friend that cover is available for those who seek it. Trustees, when taking out such insurance, should act prudently and in the best interests of the charity. They should ensure that they do not pay more than they need to and that the cover is appropriate to the risks involved.
We need to consider the questions that arise about matters of negligence, which lay at the heart of my right hon. Friend's speech. It is important to know how the law considers that issue. In some circumstances, those who act on a voluntary basis may be liable to compensate those injured as a result of their negligence, as my right hon. Friend said. As a matter of law, however, negligence comprises three legal elements—a duty of care, a duty in respect of breach of that duty and damage caused as a result of that breach.
In the case of volunteers, the first issue that arises is: do they owe a duty of care to any person injured as a result of their actions? Although the law often imposes a duty to take care not to injure others, there is no general duty to act for the benefit of others. I have put that in precise legal terms and I am glad to say that it does not inhibit the many thousands of volunteers who do care and, as my right hon. Friend rightly drew to our attention, give so generously of their time and talents.
When a person intervenes to help an injured party it is likely that a legal obligation arises to take care not to injure him further or to prevent intervention by a better qualified person. Should a situation arise in which a volunteer is held to owe a duty of care to a person injured as a result of his actions, the next stage to be considered is that of breach of duty. The standard of care, which conduct will be measured against, is that of the reasonable man. That standard may vary according to the circumstances of the case.
In terms of treatment of a road accident victim, a passer-by, who, in the absence of expert assistance, does his personal best to help, is likely to be judged by a lower standard than a person who is acting in the capacity of himself—a qualified member of a first aid organisation, albeit on a voluntary basis. Equally, I should also emphasise that the law would not see the work of the volunteers in the same light as professionally qualified medical workers. In saying that, I stress that I imply no criticism of the excellence of the work undertaken by the St. John Ambulance Brigade.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an important distinction in the perception of this matter. A victim would also have to show that he suffered as a result of the breach of duty—for example, that the volunteer caused his condition to worsen or that that volunteer prevented, in some way, his access to proper treatment. I hope that those specific comments are helpful and will act as a guideline to those who will read the debate and wonder how they or their organisations might be affected by those obligations.
My right hon. Friend gave us an outline of what he considered to be an elegant solution to the problem. It is one upon which those who read the record of the debate will want to reflect. My right hon. Friend referred to the Missouri Act, which might offer a simple way forward—as demonstrated by my right hon. Friend when he introduced his draft clauses. As far as we see it, however, that Act relies on a distinction being drawn between what is termed "gross" negligence and what might be described as "slight" or "ordinary" negligence. English law makes no such differentiation and it is important that the appropriate duty of care is exercised. It is for the courts to decide what that duty of care is. I do not want to leave this part of the debate without offering my right hon. Friend a further way forward, other than those words of observation. As the matter lies very much in the sector of health and the care that is associated with it, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health will be pleased to see my right hon. Friend and such representatives as he thinks appropriate from St. John's to discuss further the implications of what he has drawn to the attention of the House. I hope that he will take up that offer.

Sir John Wheeler: I thank my hon. Friend for that offer, which I am sure will be pursued with much enthusiasm.

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's response.
There was a great deal more in my right hon. Friend's speech on the wider issues of the voluntary sector and I shall now touch on those. In the broader context, it is perhaps worth reflecting that the Government spend £2·7 billion in the voluntary sector a year. Our focus is often on giving and not so much, as in this case, on spending. That is a substantial sum of money. It underlines the ever-growing appreciation of what the voluntary sector can contribute, in partnership with the Government, to the life of the country. One has only to look at the voluntary movement in housing to realise what a singularly important task is taken forward, by and large, by a great deal of voluntary activity. The fact that so much public money is invested in that sector underlines the importance that we attach to the voluntary contribution.
Many people ask for direct grant assistance, on which the Government spend £470 million a year in the voluntary sector. In addition, further assistance is given through taxation and my right hon. Friend will be aware that the changes announced in the recent Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will further enhance that form of help. Many individual citizens find,

for example, that schemes such as payroll giving and gift aid are a convenient way to make their personal statement of commitment to the voluntary sector.
I am responsible for the ministerial group for the voluntary sector. One of the issues that we have been considering, following remarks that I made at a Charities Aid Foundation annual meeting at the end of last year, is to renew the process of proofing that I asked other Departments to take into account in devising their policies. If my right hon. Friend's support for voluntary activity is to find its place in the realms of government, the Government have to continue to develop their appreciation and understanding of the effect that their policies have on the voluntary sector. We are reissuing those proofing guidelines to ensure that, as far as possible, that dimension of our public life is taken into account when other Departments are framing policies or legislation. That continual awareness can make a great difference in ensuring that the voluntary sector finds its place in partnership with government in many vital areas.
My right hon.Friend drew the attention of the House to the Prime Minister's new year initiative. I am excited by the idea, because I think that it taps into the innate goodness, the innate wish to give and to help, in our society. I can annouce that I am actively looking for ways to pursue that objective. I have it in mind to bring into the Home Office a group of representatives, organisations and individuals from the voluntary sector to sit with me and help me to take that initiative forward. That is again a way of underlining the importance of partnership, to which I attach a great deal of importance. If we are not, in simple terms, to reinvent the wheel, and instead to amplify what is there and derive great benefit for society out of that, the voluntary sector must play an equal part in developing the way forward. I am determined to see that work through.
As to my specific roles in terms of the criminal justice system, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the regard that the Home Office has for the work of the voluntary sector. For example, we have said that 5 per cent. of the probation services budget should be spent in the non-governmental sector in a spirit of partnership in dealing with offenders and ex-offenders in the community. That again underlines the importance of the voluntary sector in dealing with sometimes the most difficult of issues. It is sometimes easy for a good charity to persuade people to give, but it is much more difficult for that charity to show that it can work with difficult individuals. Organisations such as the Society of Voluntary Associates show what can be achieved.
Through our initiatives such as those on safer cities and on drug prevention, the voluntary sector is making an important contribution towards crime prevention. We in the Home Office do what we can to underline that by funding the superstructure of the voluntary sector. I am delighted that we are helping the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Community Development Foundation, the Volunteer Bureau and the Volunteer Centre. They all play their part in taking forward the move for greater volunteer——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We must move to the next topic.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

2 pm

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is regrettable that the important subject of the channel tunnel rail link has to be raised exclusively by me on the day before we adjourn for Easter. We have not been afforded the opportunity of a full and comprehensive debate in Government time on a project which will have a major and lasting impact on the economy and the lives of the people of the United Kingdom, probably for a century or more. That is a great tragedy, bearing in mind the engineering achievement and technologies that have been developed to create that wonderful rail link under the channel. The United Kingdom will not only have a delayed London channel link, it will not have the best either.
The history of the matter is a sad tale of meanness, Government dogma, short-sightedness and political expediency, which culminated in the announcement of the route by the Secretary of State for Transport on 22 March. The line that he announced is not based on considerations of transport, geography or geology; nor is it based on primary engineering considerations. The route has been dictated by politics, principally to protect the interests of the Conservative party and to minimise its embarrassment rather than by any attempt to maximise the great engineering opportunities that are presented by the tunnel.
The tunnel history is in three chapters. First, the southerly route was canvassed. It was the swiftest way from Dover to London and had immense logic because such a route would have maximised the tunnel's opportunities for the United Kingdom. However, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, laid down in tablets of stone that no public money would be available for the project. As a result, the Ministers who had to decide the matter were caught between the choice of a cheap route which would cause enormous environmental damage in Kent and south-east London or one that which would have to be shifted because of the legitimate outrage of people whose homes, lives and businesses would be blighted or destroyed in those areas.
No money was to be made available for necessary tunnelling or to ameliorate harm. Therefore, there was an internal political row in the Conservative party which dictated that the swiftest and most logical route would not prevail, but, instead, a route to the east of London would have to be sought. I recognise that there are hon. Members in all parts of the House who rightly champion the interests of their constituents in this matter.
It would be hard to reach agreement in the House on the best route, but Labour Members can legitimately charge the Government with their refusal and failure to test any of the route options at an independent public inquiry or some other form of hearing such as the one held by Lord Justice Roskill into an airport some years ago. Such an inquiry would have been able to examine the best and cheapest ways of maximising the benefit of this great project for the whole United Kingdom, taking into account the limiting factors imposed by cost and environmental concerns. That is what should have happened and should still happen; instead, we have been presented with a route dictated by political considerations.
After the Government's move to look for an easterly route to minimise the political damage, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind),

then Secretary of State for Transport, arrived at the Conservative party conference in October 1991 to announce what he described, with much trumpeting, as an "historic" decision on the line of route. I commend to anyone interested in the history of these matters a number of articles written at the time, particularly the one by Tony Helm in the Sunday Times on 13 October of that year. Others in The Independent by David Black, Colin Brown and Michael Harrison—on 10 October—and in The Times of the same date were also instructive about the real motives for seeking the easterly route.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: In no circumstances will I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Sunday Telegraph article said that the then Secretary of State for Transport had decided on a southerly route. It said that he was prepared to resist all the pressures from within his party. He had pored over the decision for many months and was determined to see the southerly route through. British Rail's plan for a southerly route also looked cheaper and was far more advanced than those its rivals, including that of Ove Arup, which is broadly the route that we now have. The report in The Sunday Telegraph, which I choose to believe, went on:
Mr. Rifkind stuck by his guns until the eve of the party conference and insisted he would not announce any decision at Blackpool but would do so as soon as Parliament returned.
Then, suddenly, on the Monday morning everything changed. Rumours circulated that the right hon. and learned Member for Pentlands had been caught in a last minute political pincer movement between the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), then Ministers with different portfolios from those they now hold.
It emerged that the Secretary of State for Transport was outnumbered in Cabinet and had to concede the easterly route, largely because of the looming general election which could not be long delayed. This version of events is substantiated by numerous articles of the time. The new decision was bad for the United Kingdom, but once it was given at least all the interested parties concerned—local authorities, residents, those promoting various channel tunnel projects—had some certainty. There was at last what was deemed to be a settlement of the issue, albeit inadequate. Some months later, keen readers of the Telegraph newspapers discovered that, following changes of Cabinet portfolios, the current President of the Board of Trade managed to persuade the Cabinet that the route needed to be reviewed yet again! It emerged some months ago that a major rethink was under way. It represented a betrayal by Ministers and an overturning of the former Secretary of State's decision—at enormous cost to the British people and the promoters of the channel tunnel projects.
When I challenged the Minister for Public Transport about this a little while ago he conceded that a further review of the route decided on in October 1991 was under way. He described it as a
local route variant within the broad route corridor.
It has emerged since that it is a major departure affecting large parts of Kent and my Essex constituency. It is not in the best interests of my constituents and it further dilutes the benefit that the United Kingdom can gain from the


channel tunnel project. As a consequence, there is now acute blight in my constituency and other parts of the south-east. For example, people in the Pepper Hill area of Northfield in Kent fear that the route will affect their houses and make them extremely difficult to sell.
My complaint is that the proposed line of route has never been tested at any independent public inquiry and never will be. That is undemocratic and it flies in the face of all our practices. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, wished to put a small construction at the end of your garden, you would have to seek planning permission. If you wanted to construct an airport, you would have to seek planning permission. If your applications were refused, you would have the right and opportunity to test those refusals and argue your case at independent public inquiries. The Government and Union Railways, who are promoting the route, will deny local authorities, businesses, individuals and, indeed, the country the opportunity of testing the proposed route against normal planning, environmental or engineering criteria. That is an example of what Lord Hailsham referred to as parliamentary dictatorship. The Government will ignore the legitimate views of so many people and railroad—no pun intended—this route through, regardless of the impact that it will have.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? It is just a short intervention.

Mr. Mackinlay: I made it abundantly clear that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman in any circumstances.

Mr. Evans: Why? What are you afraid of'?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has been here long enough to know that it is entirely within the capacity of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he gives way or not—especially in a short Adjournment debate which, it is understood, is divided between the Member raising it and the Minister replying.

Mr. Mackinlay: On 22 March, the Secretary of State tried to reassure the House that there will be a minimum period of consultation. All the evidence shows that that is a shama—charade. He also went on to say, and I have checked Hansard, that the consultation will be led by Union Railways, which is promoting the project and will be judge and advocate in its own court. The environmental impact will not be considered. The route will be imposed on the south-east regardless of the objections.
On the same day, the Government published a document, "Channel Tunnel Rail Link: An Independent Review". It is so independent that it was commissioned by the Department of Transport. That is somewhat cynical. Paragraph 48 of that document makes it abundantly clear that no criteria are laid down for judging the full environmental impact of such a project, despite the fact that the British Government should have laid down such criteria to fulfil the spirit and letter of the European directives on environmental impact assessments. No one will have the opportunity to say, "The Government and Union Railways are not applying the criteria that they should." As with so many other projects, the Government

have proceeded slowly in laying down the criteria necessary to fulfil the European directive on environmental impact assessments.
It is a tragedy that the Ove Arup route—the easterly route—was chosen without assessing all the options at some form of independent, quasi-judicial hearing. As I have already said, if we have to have the easterly route, it is reasonable to expect the Government to be consistent and to stand by the decision taken in 1991. They have reneged on that and it is fair to ask why they have done that.
It is clear that the profit motive has become the primary, not the secondary, consideration. When I challenged someone at Union Rail about why the route had been altered to the disadvantage of my constituents, I was told that it was because the previous route, which took the line along the Dartford marshes and crossed the river Thames in the vicinity of the Kent-Essex boundary with the former Greater London council area—a proposal which was acceptable to many people—had overlooked the development potential of the Dartford marshes. There was, therefore, a need to shift the route.
I suspect also that the latest route is intended to go a little south of the area of Blue Water Park, Northfleet so as to maximise the opportunities where there is an intention to build a massive retail park. In my view, that is not a legitimate or primary reason for shaping the line of the route and I believe that it is wholly reprehensible that such considerations should enter the equation.
The route will cross the River Thames in a tunnel in the vicinity of Stoneness point. It will pass beneath West Thurrock power station which, incidentally, ceased production this week. It will emerge at ground level in the Oliver road trading estate area and then pass beneath the approach road to the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at the Thurrock-Dartford M25 crossing. This engineering exercise is breathtaking. The line will come out of the ground, pass over the approach road to the QE2 bridge, but also go through the piers of that great engineering project. That is like passing a thread through the smallest of needles. I am told that it can be done, but it is breathtaking bearing in mind that there will have to be the highest and steepest rail gradient in Europe—1 in 40—to achieve that. That wonderful fast train will have to negotiate a massive hill on its way to London. I doubt whether that has been fully and critically examined from an engineering point of view and I suspect that it is the product of the Government and Union Rail trying to rush the project through for the political reasons to which I referred earlier.
The line will then cross open land north of Van den Berghs on a viaduct crossing London road, Purfleet at the Stonehouse lane junction. It will run parallel to the Purfleet bypass on its southern side, crossing the brow of the hill of the Purfleet bypass in a cutting. It will then pass the northern edge of the Mardyke Park estate on a viaduct. The Mardyke Park estate is a very attractive, modern private residential estate in which people have invested their savings. They are very happy in that wonderful environment, but, under these proposals, they will have to endure a viaduct overlooking their properties. There will, in addition, be appalling noise consequences. The route will move on in a westerly direction towards London and merge with the existing London to Tilbury and Southend railway.
That is the position as it affects my constituents. It is grossly unfair that they should be hit in that way, with minimum notice, when the Minister confirmed in 1991 that they would not be so affected. This is a great betrayal and I make no apology for saying that it is the fault of the Conservative Government and of Conservative Members. I should like to know what help will be provided for those who are blighted. Will we have a full debate in Government time in which this whole wretched issue can be reviewed and scrutinised by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Will the Minister tell us the timing of the hybrid Bill, which will be the last opportunity for me, for my constituents and for the local authorities to try legitimately to frustrate this crazy route? How and when will Parliament be told how the project is to be funded?
The Secretary of State said that he still hoped to attract private funds. I have no objection to that for this project or. for many others, but I say on behalf of the United kingdom that the channel tunnel rail route needs to be in place as quickly as possible and that it needs to be the best. The route now being proposed is not the best. It is time the Government decided how the route, whichever one is chosen, is to be funded. They have signally failed to do that. Clearly, there will be enormous congestion on our railway network in decades to come because of the Government's failure to realise the needs of the channel tunnel project on its way to London from where it will give continental access to the rest of the United Kingdom.
I apologise for detaining the House at some length, but I point out that this is a matter of great importance to my constituents which is causing them great distress. They and many thousands of others in Kent and Essex have been treated grossly unfairly. Above all, the whole story is one of failure by the Government to do what is fair and best for the people living in Kent and Essex, and to do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom generally.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): The one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is that this is an important subject. I know that not only the hon. Gentleman but those of my hon. Friends who are affected by the route are concerned about this major project. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) in his place and I know that he has taken a deep interest in this matter.
I was rather disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I had hoped to be able to answer some detailed questions. What we got was a rather inconclusive, third-rate, sixth-form rant about the evils of the Conservative Government, which did not take him or his constituents any further. To assist the hon. Gentleman, I will suggest the questions that he might have asked me and which might have helped his constituents. I will then give the answers to those questions. At least there will then be a constructive contribution to this important debate. I note that my hon. Friend for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is also in her place and I know that she, too, has also taken a great interest in these matters. I see that she is breathless in anticipation of my remarks.
The thrust of the hon. Gentleman's rant appeared to be the absence of a public inquiry. The hon. Gentleman should know that, throughout the process of refining the route, Union Railways discussed the options available to

those planning the route with representatives of local authorities, necessarily on a confidential basis, so that it could be sure that it was aware of the authorities' plans for the future and of other relevant matters.
Formal consultation with the authorities will take place over the next six months and it is recognised that authorities will wish to comment further from today. That consultation is vital and valuable, and it will give some scope for enhancing the horizontal or vertical alignments of the route. For the Government simply to have published all the options without stating a preference would not have been progress—it would have been going backwards. The Government want to take the project forward and to put an end to the blight that is the real enemy of the public interest in these circumstances. We want to bring about the benefits that will come with construction of the railway. There has now been an opportunity for the House to look at the details of my right hon. Friend's statement of 22 March and at the documents published in support of it.
The channel tunnel rail link, threading a route through the garden of England, across the Thames, through the edge of Essex and urban east London is an extraordinarily large project in its scope and imagination. I suggest that such a scheme cannot take place without some environmental impact. It is extraordinary that, for a 67 mile long route, the impacts are surprisingly few; only 11 residential properties are required to be demolished along the whole route. It has proved possible to produce an environmentally sensitive route which—crucially—the country can afford. It is important to appreciate the painstaking process through which the consultation process had to go to produce it.
The easterly route corridor was selected by the Government in 1991 because it has less environmental impact than other options and because it could foster regeneration in the east Thames corridor. I remind the House that there was all-party support for that choice. All the work since to optimise the route has proved that the original selection of the corridor was right. The route selected was conceived by Ove Arup and had been engineered in sufficient detail to prove its feasibility and to provide a reliable basis for comparison with the other principal options. Clearly, the selected route then had to be refined by comparing all the localised route options within a broad route corridor.
We have achieved substantial cost savings without any reduction in the level of environmental protection. The environmental standards applied are those used for other major transport infrastructure projects in this country.
On the section of the route local to the hon. Member for Thurrock, my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), all of whom are affected by the proposals, the section between Gravesham and Ford presented particular challenges because it has to include a crossing of the Thames in a fairly built-up area. Contaminated land is also an issue and there are extensive designations for nature conservation. We also had to provide for station options which will enable the east Thames corridor to reap the benefits of regeneration—and I stress the words "benefits of regeneration".
The route originally defined by Ove Arup had some significant environmental disadvantages, such as a serious impact on the Aveley marshes site of special scientific interest within Thurrock. Union Railways was duty bound to find out whether those impacts could be eliminated or


reduced by local adjustment and Ove Arup was appointed as the lead consultant. It is impossible to devise a route that is devoid of environmental impact and the adjusted route for the section is described as "acceptable" by Union Railways' environmental consultants, compared with the description of "very difficult" for the alignment originally proposed by Ove Arup.
As a result, more of the proposed route will be in Thurrock, but it is important not to base snap judgments on that fact alone and to consider the whole section from Gravesham to Ford when deciding on the preferred option. The cost saving on that section is about 15 per cent. of the cost—£70 million on £490 million—but the issue is that the route for consultation is markedly better in environmental terms.
I will deal with some of the matters affecting the constituency of the hon. Member for Thurrock. He mentioned Mardyke Park. I know the area well—the hon. Gentleman knows that we are all familiar with it. He was quoted in his local newspaper as saying that the scheme would ruin "the quality of life" for thousands of his constituents. His contribution to the debate has thus been to wipe hundreds of thousands of pounds off the values of homes on the Mardyke Park estate at one stroke. I remind him that no homes will need to be demolished in Thurrock. There will be a need for environmental mitigation measures. That has always been understood. There will also be a need to incorporate screening and whatever else may be necessary to prevent unnecessary impact on homes. It is entirely right and proper that we should consider such matters during the consultation period. I have no doubt that residents of the area will find that their concerns are met. It does the hon. Gentleman's constituents no favours whatever to turn this into a great anti-Government rant for his own party political purposes, given that it is their homes that are on the line.

Mr. Tony Banks: That's the trouble.

Mr. Norris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West for picking up that pearl of English usage.
The same is true of the industrial estate. The aim there will be to relocate any jobs displaced within the area. Considerable effort will be devoted to that and the rail link will also help to create substantial numbers of jobs in the east Thames corridor. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Thurrock is suggesting that there are enough jobs in Thurrock already. I have not heard him prosecute that argument before. I can tell him that my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and I would be more than happy to have those jobs; perhaps the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would, too.
The basic thesis that the hon. Member for Thurrock has advanced is that the whole exercise has been conducted without reference to public interest or concern. That is a false premise. The hon. Gentleman does his constituents no favours by pursuing that line. What I advise him to do in future is to consider in detail, in a properly studied and measured way——

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Amendment to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill set out in the Lords Message of 18th March be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr. James Arbuthnot: Wednesday 14 April.

Commercial Whaling

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As this is the last debate before the House adjourns, may I wish you the happiest of Easters—and long may I catch your eye.
This is not the first time that I have raised in the House the subject of the suffering inflicted on animal life by that most cruel and barbarous of all living creatures—the human being. We believe ourselves to be the highest form of life on the planet and the most intelligent of all creatures. Wrong. We are not. We are simply the most powerful life form—converting intelligence into arrogance and unspeakable brutality. Human beings are capable of scaling the heights of sublime creativity and guilty of plumbing the depths of depravity. From rape and torture in Bosnia to badger baiting in Britain, there is a continuum of cruelty which, in my darker moments, makes me believe that it would have been better had human beings never evolved from our most primitive state. I can think of nothing that we have ever achieved that compensates for the cruelty and suffering that we have inflicted both on ourselves and on other living creatures.
Among the most wondrous of all living creatures must be the great whales. They evoke awe and fascination in those of us capable of such decent feeling. They have lived on earth for some 50 million years, in perfect balance with nature until the brutal intervention of those relative newcomers, human beings. There are some 80 species of whale, dolphin and porpoise. The blue whale is the largest creature ever to have lived on the planet—more massive than even the largest dinosaur. The brain of the sperm whale is the largest to be found in any creature, including man. The song of the humpback whale is intricate and evocative and capable of being transmitted hundreds of miles through the sea. The toothed whales use a form of sonar for echo location up to 95 per cent. more accurate than the most sophisticated sonar developed by humans.
Whales great and small are highly intelligent, communal, wartn-blooded mammals with complex social behaviour patterns. They deserve to be studied and cherished. There are so many unanswered questions about them. How do they manage to survive at great pressure during deep sea diving? How do they communicate one with another? They have so much to teach us, yet over the centuries we have slaughtered these gentle, harmless creatures for such worthless purposes as turning them into pet food, candles and perfume.
Even to the insensitive, exploitative human being, it eventually became evident that whales were being hunted to extinction. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission banned commercial whaling, the ban corning into force in 1985–86. Since then, more than 14,000 whales have been slaughtered by certain whaling countries—either under objections to the ban or through so-called scientific whaling. Japan takes approximately 300 minke whales each year in the Antarctic. The Norwegians started their scientific whaling in 1992 and, in the period to 1994, they intend to take some 400 minke whales.
The Norwegians now intend to go further and resume commercial whaling this year, regardless of the decision made by the IWC. It is that blatant disregard for the

international community on the part of the Norwegian Government which has driven me to raise the issue this afternoon. I shall return later to the subject of Norway and its supposedly socialist and environmentally concerned Prime Minister, Mrs. Gro Harlem Brundtland, but first I want to say a few words about the method of whale killing. Cruelty starts not with the firing of the harpoon, but with the chase of the animal. It causes great stress for those creatures because it can take up to an hour or more. Sometimes, the whaling ships use sonar to confuse and scare the animal so that it comes to the surface and thus presents itself as an easier target to hit with the harpoon.
In 1980, the IWC humane killing workshop agreed on a definition:
To cause death without pain, stress or distress perceptible to the animal.
At the same IWC workshop in 1993, the pro-whaling nations said categorically that such a definition could not be achieved in whaling operations. The solution, therefore, to people like myself, the Minister and others is simple, obvious and logical. If whales cannot be killed humanely, they should not be killed at all.
Despite all that, the slaughter still goes on. Japan and Norway are probably the worst offenders, followed by Iceland, but there are others. Japan and Norway attempt to camouflage their limited commercial whaling by calling it scientific whaling. It is a perversion of the word "scientific". It is rather like Dr. Josef Mengele experimenting on live human beings in Nazi concentration camps in the name of science.
What do those countries discover in their scientific whaling? When they have slaughtered the whales, they find that there are fewer whales in the sea than when they started. What happens to the meat? Surprise, surprise—if you happen to have a preference for whale meat, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I know is anathema to you as it is to me, that meat can be purchased in good restaurants in Tokyo and in supermarkets in Oslo. So much for scientific whaling.
What sort of cruelty are we actually talking about? The weapon used to kill whales is an explosive harpoon. Its head has two or four barbs, to which is screwed an explosive grenade. As the harpoon enters the body the grenade explodes, scattering whatever organs and tissue with which it happens to make contact. For the hunting of minke whales, the species now targeted by whalers, a different explosive has been developed for use in the harpoon. It is called penthrite—a powerful explosive that damages less of the whale meat than traditional explosive harpoons. Whales are mammals with a highly developed nervous system, comparable in many ways to that of land mammals, including man. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that they are capable of feeling pain to the same extent.
I want now to return to the determination of Norway to recommence open commercial whaling later this year. In February, at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, the Norwegian Prime Minister, Mrs. Brundtland, addressed us. There were questions afterwards. I and two Conservative Members—one from the House and one from the other place—together with a German Member of Parliament asked why Norway was determined to ignore an international agreement on whaling. At that point, Mrs. Brundtland went nuclear. She gave us a long, rambling, incoherent, inaccurate and, indeed, devious reply. I have circulated copies of it to hon.


Members. In my opinion, Mrs. Brundtland, who parades her green credentials around the world to polite applause from liberal-minded audiences, is nothing short of a hypocrite.
Mrs. Brundtland accused the IWC of being unscientific in its use of evidence to protect the North sea stock of minke whales. In 1991, the scientific committee of the IWC concluded that the north-east Atlantic minkes had been continuously declining throughout Norwegian whaling between 1953 and 1983. Norwegian scientists did not contest that fact. Mrs. Brundtland then accused the IWC of breaking its own rules, but Norway's killing of minke whales with explosive harpoons actually contravenes Norway's animal welfare regulations.
Having not succeeded up to that point, Mrs. Brundtland then resorted to the most bankrupt of all arguments. It was given to her by one of her officials, almost as an afterthought, and it would have been better had she not mentioned it. She said that whales had to be controlled because they eat too many fish. The depletion of fish stocks has nothing to do with whales and seals but everything to do with overfishing by man. I have heard the Minister speak about the matter on many occasions in the House and elsewhere. The answer lies in factory-ship fishing and the mismanagement of fish stocks. Before intensive fishing methods were employed, the seas teemed with all fish species. There was no fish shortage; nor was there a whale shortage. Whales were not endangered before the activities of purblind, stupid human beings intervened. If Mrs. Brundtland does not understand that, I believe her to be a total fool.
Whales are migratory creatures. They do not belong to any one nation or to any group of nations. They belong to the planet and in that sense they belong to us all. No body and no nation has a right to kill them, especially not in defiance of international agreements. Neither Norway nor Japan has any economic justification for killing whales. After all, they are two of the wealthiest countries in the world.
I ask the Minister to say what action we should take against Norway if it goes ahead with commercial whaling. If I had my way, I would give the crews of the whalers five minutes to leave their ships and then I would blow them, the ships, out of the water. I suspect that the Minister might not wish to go so far on this occasion. I hope, however, that he will take an aggressive stand in respect of the Norwegians.
I put a question to the Prime Minister recently on whaling. It was a gentle question and I hoped that it would be given a helpful reply. I could have been my usual, aggressive person and gone for his throat. I had some good questions at the back of my mind. To myself, I said, "No, the right hon. Gentleman is a decent sort and he will no doubt say something helpful." He did not. I then regretted having asked him such a gentle question. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would oppose Norway's application to join the EEC if it persisted with its decision to resume commercial whaling. He just passed over the question. Unfortunately, his reply was not as good as the responses that I have been getting from his Ministers. Worse than that, the Prime Minister's answer was reported in the Norwegian press and taken up by Norwegian politicians on the basis that the British Government did

not mind very much if the Norwegians went ahead with commercial whaling. That is how the right hon. Gentleman's answer was translated in the Norwegian press. I hope that the Minister will rectify the situation this afternoon and make the British Government's position clear so that no one can misinterpret their views. On this occasion, the Government will be speaking for us all.
As I have said, I think that the Minister must be pushed into taking an aggressive stand against Norway. There should be no negotiation with Norway over its European Community application should commercial whaling recommence. Appropriate sanctions should be taken on Norwegian fish exports by all the Community nations. Norwegian ships should be banned from European Community waters. I should like to see a ban placed on all Norwegian exports, including oil and gas. The country must be made to pay if it is to defy world opinion. I am sure that animal welfare organisations will organise boycotts and demonstrations against Norway should commercial whaling recommence.
I say in a calculated way that Norwegian embassies in several European countries will undoubtedly become a focus for protest. All the public relations companies that the Norwegian Government are busily and, I understand, unsuccessfully trying to retain will not be able to repair the enormous damage to Norway's image should it defy the great weight of public opinion in Europe and north America.
The British Government should not stop there. We still have to deal with Japan, which has continued to defy world opinion and the IWC for many years now. Worldwide measures must be taken to protect the whale.
I shall ask the Minister some specific questions. If he cannot answer them this afternoon, I will ensure that they reach him in written form so he can give me a considered response. Apart from myself, many citizens of this country and of others will be interested to hear his response. I believe that the United Kingdom should support the proposal of France that there should be a sanctuary in the southern oceans, including Antarctic waters. I received a welcome letter of support from the Falklands Islands Government. It was a thoughtful response and I will send a copy of that letter to the Minister.
The United Kingdom Government must rigorously and publicly oppose moves to reopen commercial whaling under the new revised management procedures. We must oppose it on the ground of cruelty. The British Government's voice must be heard unequivocally on the matter. We must not surrender to Norwegian and Japanese demands in order to save the IWC. That would be like giving way to terrorist demands.
Norway might be pushing for a negotiated position on the revised management procedures rather than seriously contemplating quitting the IWC. We must call Norway's bluff. Voting in the IWC must remain on the basis of requiring a three quarters majority. One knows that the Japanese are trying to secure voting on a simple majority basis and, I understand, busily buying up the votes of smaller countries to achieve that. It would be contrary to the convention to allow that to happen. Again, I hope that the British Government will speak out loudly on the matter.
Norwegian and Japanese Governments are spending huge sums of money on pro-whaling propaganda and a misinformation campaign. It all started with Mrs. Brundtland herself. It is essential that non-whaling


Governments such as ours challenge the campaign and do not simply leave that challenge to the non-governmental organisations which are doing so much sterling work but lack the authority that a sovereign Government can bring to their statements.
There is enormous all-party opposition in the House to the whaling activities of Norway and Japan. The British Government must reflect that opinion in their dealings with those two wickedly misguided countries. I have spoken on the issue before in the House. I have spoken in previous Adjournment debates. I have always had a good response from the Government because they know the depth of feeling in the House and in the country.
But we seem to be getting nowhere with Norway and Japan. We must not allow them to defy civilised opinion in Britain, north America and the European Community. They must take some hard lessons. I hope that the British Government will start the process of delivering hard lessons and will protect those wonderful creatures, the whales. I hope that the British Government will tell the Norwegians and Japanese that they will not be allowed to kill the whales.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): This is the third time that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I have discussed this matter in the House. As I listened to him, I looked at the "BBC-Vacher's Guide to the New House of Commons". For the hon. Gentleman it says:
Interests (Political) No details.
Interests (Personal) No details.
Vacher's cannot have been listening in the past few years to the hon. Gentleman's real concerns on environmental matters.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we have never had a disagreement of any significance. That will be the case today because the British Government take the view that they take not to reflect opinion within or outside the House, but because they share that opinion. They are not merely running in front of the crowd. We believe largely what most people believe about whaling.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Norwegian claim about fish stocks. He will be interested to know that, in the talks on the enlargement of the Community and bringing in the European Free Trade Association countries, projections were made of fish stocks. The Norwegians project a sustained increase and improvement in the cod stocks in the north Atlantic. So clearly, whatever depredations may be inflicted on the fish stocks, they do not stop the stocks showing a sustained improvement. We, too, benefit from that improvement.
I begin with Norway and the link with the enlargement of the Community because that was the main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's speech. As he knows, Norway has applied for membership of the European Community. Indeed, it applied before the referendum eventually went against membership. The EC has agreed to the habitats directive. That directive comes into force in May 1994. Under the directive, all species of cetaceans will be protected in the Community's territorial waters up to 200 miles. That includes whales.
All trade in whale products throughout the Community is banned under the EC CITES—Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—regulations. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the agreements is a

whaling ban in Community waters. There is no other way of interpreting them. When Norway comes into the Community it seems to me inconceivable that the Community would wish to relax that ban. Therefore, Norway has applied to join an organisation which bans whaling. In forthcoming negotiations, public and governmental attention will be focused on Norway and I cannot imagine that a proposal to change that situation would be readily negotiable. In one sense, Norway is moving towards a situation in which its freedom of manoeuvre is largely circumscribed. That is to be welcomed.
The remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister do not in any way represent a dilution of the Government's stand. I have looked hard at what my right hon. Friend said and what has been said previously, and what I am saying has my right hon. Friend's agreement, as it does of every member of the Government. It is not the case that anyone in the Government is going soggy on this issue. 
The issue of whaling unites the House and public opinion. It is timely for the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter now because the International Whaling Commission meets in Kyoto next month. Many issues are on the agenda and it is bound to cover the question of the future of Norwegian whaling and its access to the Community. Our position is clear: we will not even begin to contemplate commercial whaling unless a series of essential preconditions are met. First, the stocks should be in a healthy state, based on the very best scientific evidence available. Secondly, we should be satisfied about the humaneness of killing whales. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are a long way from obtaining satisfaction on that. I shall go into more detail on that, despite the fact that it is a gory subject, as the hon. Gentleman would recognise. Thirdly, full, effective and transparent means of monitoring and observing whaling operations which command international respect should be in place. We have not even started to elaborate that dossier and the Kyoto meeting will take the first steps towards that.
There is an argument about the state of the stocks and the scientific evidence about them. One's decision about whether they are sustainable is based on whether one wants to hunt them and is a function of that hunting. As to the humaneness of the killing and effective monitoring, we are nowhere near reaching a decision to the effect that we might wish to bring the moratorium to an end.
We have been a firm supporter of the moratorium on commercial whaling and we played an important role in getting it agreed. It was established in the 1985–86 season and it can be overturned only by a three quarters majority vote. The United Kingdom has no intention of lending itself to any manoeuvre to dilute that vote. As the hon. Gentleman said, certain members of the International Whaling Commission use their wealth—I put it no better than that—to influence the votes of less important members of the commission, who have no effective interest in whaling and whose membership of the commission stems from historical reasons.
That moratorium was long overdue because the former management procedures were discredited. The state of the stocks were giving rise to serious concern, although many of the great whales, which had been seriously over-hunted, had been protected since the 1960s and, in some cases, from even earlier. The remaining stocks of the commercial species were, however, under immense pressure.
We have also taken a strong stance on the question of humane killing. We played a major part in getting the so-called "cold" or non-explosive harpoon banned by the IWC. We have consistently pressed humaneness issues in the commission and we promoted a three-day study of them at the previous commission meeting in Glasgow. We secured a consensus for the 11-point action plan to promote further investigation into equipment, methods, times to death and other similar difficult details, including improvement in the analysis and presentation of past and present data on whaling and regular progress reviews. As I said, we believe that the present methods have a long way to go before they could even remotely be described as humane. Enormous concern remains about the time of death and secondary killing methods such as using rifles and cold harpoons to dispatch the whales that have not been killed quickly.
It is equally true that we must have credible, open and thoroughly effective schemes for observation and enforcement, plus minimum data standards, and we do not believe that we can rely on national inspection by the whaling nations alone. That would not be acceptable. Although the hon. Gentleman did not mention it, we are equally concerned about the Faroese whale hunt and we know what public opinion is on that. We were active in Glasgow in that respect, trying to focus concerns over that fishery and seeking improvements in the killing methods and linking that with the general resolution on humane killing. We have consistently pressed for significant improvements in that conduct, through the commission, and we will continue to do so. We look for a positive response to last year's resolution.
A number of issues will have to be discussed in Kyoto. The first is the maintenance of the moratorium on commercial whaling. The preconditions have not been met. We are keenly interested in the proposals for the whale sanctuary circling the polar regions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they were submitted too late for consideration at the last commission meeting, but will come forward this time. That is an interesting and challenging approach and we see strong parallels with the United Kingdom's approach, which was adopted at the commission last year, based on global environmental threats and the way in which those can impact on cetacean stocks and their management.
We also wish to promote another aspect, which may be one of the best ways forward—ecotourism, or allowing people to go to look at whales. In other words, whales can be used in a way that will allow people to benefit from that remarkable creation. It is a non-lethal alternative to commercial whaling. It could be a commercial industry. It is fast growing. We reckon that in 1991 it generated an income of £185 million world wide. That is a perfect form of co-existence between human beings who have a fascination for the creatures and the creatures themselves. It will also generate income for communities that were dependent on whaling.
We must make further progress on humane killing. Japan and Norway have been put on notice and detailed

work on the further protection of small cetaceans is required to build on the success of a number of United Kingdom co-sponsored resolutions last year which highlighted those threatened species. We have kept in close touch with the environmental groups connected with whales and their protection and conservation. The Department has already had meetings with organisations such as Greenpeace, the Environmental Investigation Agency, the RSPCA and the World Wide Fund for Nature. Some of them were represented on our delegation last year and my right hon. Friend the Minister is due to meet them later this month in the run-up to Kyoto. We look forward to participation and continuing close co-operation in Kyoto and beyond.
As my hon. Friend said—on the last day of the term, on this issue, perhaps we might be permitted to breach the normal conventions—Norway started a major scientific whaling programme last year. Substantial numbers of minke whales have been taken and there were failures in harpoon technology. The scientific programme was strongly criticised by the commission last year in terms of both its purpose and scale. Norway declared at the beginning of last year's meeting that she would start commercial whaling this year, whatever decisions were taken by the International Whaling Commission. It has been suggested that Norway could retune the IWC computer catch limit model to produce the numbers of minke whales that it wanted. One has to be careful, if one cannot get the external evidence to suit one, not to start playing around with the numbers that come up on the screen.
We find Norway's claim incomprehensible, as the hon. Member has said, coming from a nation which prides itself on its environmental record and its declared wish to work through and not against international organisations. Therefore, Norwegian actions have been condemned here and abroad and have clearly cost Norway's reputation dear. It is curious that a nation which most people would regard as a model for a certain concept of international responsibility should depart from that for an industry, which, looked at objectively in the light of Norway's declared aims for her future, seems to be incapable of being sustained in any case. That seems counterproductive, self-destructive and short term.
We are clear that Norway's actions are incompatible with Community regulations on whales, on the protection of species under CITES and with the habitats directive. The Commission takes the same view on the de facto ban on whaling and we have made it clear to Norway that she has to accept this as part of the aquis of coming into the Community. In practice, Norwegian accession would mean the end of Norwegian whaling in EC territorial waters and the end of any possibility of trade in whale products. We can at least look forward to that as an important step on the way to ending this practice.

The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock till Wednesday 14 April, pursuant to the Resolution [1 April].